Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (MR. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Restaurant Meals (Christmas Season)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consider authorising increased charges for meals served in hotels and restaurants on 24th, 25th, 26th and 31st December, 1948 and 1st January, 1949.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): No, Sir. I have considered this possibility but have come to the conclusion that it would not be desirable to allow caterers to charge more for meals at Christmas time.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the fact that both hotels and restaurants have to pay greatly increased charges because of the provisions of the regulations under the Catering Wages Act, and as many hotels have already announced their intention to close down for these holiday periods, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer, or are we to have complete austerity at Christmas time, too?

Mr. Strachey: I do not think I can consider allowing a higher charge for

meals, but it might be possible to do something along the lines of some allowance for special Christmas festivities at particular meals—crackers, etc.

Sir Stanley Holmes: Does not the Minister realise, having regard to the fact that the public know that the Government are compelling restaurateurs and hotel keepers to pay additional wages for Christmas service, that the public are only too anxious to take advantage of what is provided for them by those restaurants and hotels, and will be only too ready to pay an extra contribution for what they are getting?

Mr. Strachey: That is a matter of opinion.

Sir Peter Macdonald: In view of the fact that hotels and caterers have to make their arrangements some time in advance, will the Minister come to an early decision on this matter and let them know where they stand, in order that they can make their plans for Christmas?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, I think that is a reasonable request.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Cocoa Beans (Price)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the decision reached by most of the large chocolate manufacturers throughout this country to discontinue the manufacture of slab chocolate owing to the high price of cocoa beans, and since this price is fixed by the Government, he will take steps to reduce the cost of the raw material used in the manufacture of slab chocolate.

Mr. Strachey: The Ministry selling price is reviewed from time to time to bring it in line with the price of raw cocoa, but I am not prepared to make a special reduction to manufacturers of slab chocolate.

Mr. De la Bère: Surely the Minister is aware that plain slab chocolate is almost unobtainable throughout the country today? Is it not vitally necessary that plain chocolate should be made available, and that present prices, which do not go to the growers, or at least will not reach


them for a long time, should come down so as to make it worth while to manufacture plain chocolate? Why not take sweets and sugar off the ration at once?

Mr. Strachey: It would be very nice if the world price of raw cocoa came down, but that is not a thing which it is within the power of the Government to do by fiat.

Mr. Driberg: With regard to the raw material and its cost, is my right hon. Friend always looking out for new sources of supply which have not yet been fully developed? Is he aware, for instance, of the research into more intensive methods of cultivation now being conducted in Jamaica? Has my right hon. Friend consulted the Colonial Office about that?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, that is important, but unfortunately it is a long-term remedy, as the cocoa tree takes seven years to attain full production.

Potatoes

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the large yield of potatoes per acre throughout the country, and the difficulty growers are experiencing in finding licensed merchants who will accept their crops, he will allow the growers to sell them to the shops or public without a licence.

Mr. Strachey: The licensing system was introduced to ensure guaranteed prices to producers and regular supplies to consumers. I am considering whether any change is needed to meet the present temporary situation. Any grower who cannot find a merchant to take sound ware potatoes may of course offer them to my Department and obtain the guaranteed fixed price.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the Members of Parliament, and the hon. Member for Evesham, may not tender their potatoes to the Ministry under a very old Act? What in the world are they to do? Are they to go on looking at their potatoes throughout eternity?

Mr. Strachey: I recognise that there is a special difficulty for the limited category of persons to whom the hon. Member refers, but I think they may meet that difficulty through an accredited merchant.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Why cannot the Minister allow to continue the system which was in force before the war by which if the grower had a surplus of potatoes, he could sell them to the public without any licence at all?

Mr. Strachey: I know that was one of the suggestions which I said I would consider, provided, of course, that he sold within the guaranteed price.

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask whether the Minister will consider it very quickly?

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he will give in tabular form the retail fixed prices for the various sorts of potatoes for the 1947 and 1948 crops; if he will state the amount of Government subsidy used to achieve these prices; and if he will take off all controls on potatoes immediately.

Mr. Strachey: As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the Minister aware that his regulations for the control of potatoes are causing unnecessarily high prices to the consumer and a waste of potatoes? Is he not aware that there never was a shortage of potatoes this year or last year?

Mr. Strachey: I am unaware of all those things.

Sir W. Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman will never learn.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member's suggestion that all controls should be taken off potatoes this year would, of course, involve the most unwarrantable breach of promise to all the farmers of the country.

Following is the statement:

As the list of maximum retail prices is rather long I am sending to the hon. Member S.R. & O.s 1947 Nos. 1100, 1573, 1898 and 2115; and 1948 Nos. 1116, 1751 and 2200 in which the prices are tabulated. These prices are not directly subsidised although as the hon. Member knows the growers receive an acreage payment from the Ministry of Agriculture. The removal of all controls on potatoes at the present time would, of course, cause the price to the growers to fall catastrophically, would cause them


heavy losses, and would be the most unwarrantable breach of faith to the farmers who were given a binding promise of a guaranteed price.

Orange Juice and Cod Liver Oil

Dr. Santo Jeger: asked the Minister of Food if he will consider extending the provision of orange juice and cod liver oil to children after they attain the age of five years.

Mr. Strachey: A substantial part of the orange juice required to meet even our present commitments costs dollars, so I am afraid that I cannot extend the class of beneficiaries. Cod liver oil may be obtained by anyone through the ordinary retail channels.

Mr. Bramall: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of once again getting orange juice from Palestine?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. We are getting all the citrus products that we can from Palestine.

Fish Friers (Fat Allocation)

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Minister of Food how many licences for fish friers have been granted during October, 1948; and how many were issued during October, 1947.

Mr. Strachey: One thousand two hundred and twenty—two in October 1948, and 25 in October, 1947.

Mr. Sharp: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the increased number issued during 1948 indicates that all these are people who otherwise would not have got licences under the old regulations?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, I think that is a fair inference.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not a fact that this wholesale granting of licences will prove most unfair to those who have borne the heat and burden of the day during the last few years owing to the great difficulty as regards the fat allowance?

Mr. Strachey: The existing fish friers have borne the heat and burden of the

day for a year or two, but it has not been an unremunerative heat or burden.

Mr. Sharp: asked the Minister of Food why applicants for fish friers' licences may now receive 4 cwt. of fat per allocation period without there being any investigation by his Department into the requirements of consumers, whilst many fish friers receiving 3 cwt. or less of fat per period, who are already equipped to give additional service, are denied a 4 cwt. allocation.

Mr. Strachey: The arrangement I made to provide licences freely was to encourage competition in the fish-frying trade. Obviously an applicant for such a licence would choose an area where he had good prospects of making a living and, therefore, of satisfying the demands of consumers. I am, sure the hon. Member would agree that the applicant who has to stake his livelihood on it will be the best judge of consumer need. The vast majority of fish friers who receive less than 4 cwt. were part-time fish friers before the war, and as I announced in the House on 1st November, I have arranged to bring the allocation of fat up to a minimum of 3 cwt. per eight weeks for all fish friers, from 5th December, 1948. The large full-time friers in general already get an allocation of varying quantities much above the 4 cwt. per eight week period according to their pre-war usage.

Mr. Sharp: In view of the fact that many of the new licences which have recently been granted have been granted for shops in close proximity to many fish friers who are now getting only 3 cwt. of fat, and in view of the fact that these new licensees are getting 4 cwt., does my right hon. Friend consider that that is fair, and will he consider bringing up the minimum to 4 cwt. for existing licences?

Mr. Strachey: If that is so, if the existing fish frier has been getting less than 3 cwt., it must have been because he was a very small or part-time operator before the war. I would like to bring up the allocation to 4 cwt., and if and when fats are available, we shall do so.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct his officials in the country to look into the applications for additional fats rather more sympathetically, particularly where the shops


are situated in an industrial area, and people really want this form of food? Is the Minister aware that during the three years I have been a Member of this House, I have never yet had a single application that I put forward received favourably by his Ministry?

Mr. Strachey: I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Member has had such bad luck, but I am sure that of over 2,000 applications which we have just granted, some must be in his constituency?

Mr. Sharp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has not answered my main point, which was whether he is aware that there are new licensees getting 4 cwt. of fat when there are already licensees in the same area who are still getting only 3 cwt.? In all fairness will not he bring the allocation to the people receiving 3 cwt. up to 4 cwt.?

Mr. Strachey: My reply to my hon. Friend was that those who were getting 3 cwt. or less—if they were getting less it has been brought up to 3 cwt.—must have been small or part-time fish friers before the war, because they are getting 80 per cent. of the pre—war allocation. Therefore, I do not think that any injustice is being done. But I repeat that if and when we have more fats available, we shall, of course, be very happy to increase their allocation, as we shall be to increase the allocation of every fish frier.

Commander Noble: Would the Minister draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to the case of those fish friers who were bombed out during the war and are having great difficulty in finding new premises?

Mr. Chetwynd: Would it not be possible for a fish frier receiving an allocation of 3 cwt. to close down his business for one day and make a fresh application and get 4 cwt.?

Mr. Strachey: That is a very ingenious suggestion, but I am afraid it is too late, as the period of free granting of licences closed last week.

Mr. Sharp: asked the Minister of Food what percentages of the new fish friers licensed since 20th September, 1948, have received fat allocations of 4 cwt. or more, and 3 cwt. or less, respectively.

Mr. Strachey: Of the new permits granted up to date, 87 per cent. have been for 4 cwt. per eight weekly period and 13 per cent. for 3 cwt. or less. These last will all receive 3 cwt. per period as from 5th December.

Mr. Sharp: Is not this figure an added justification for the plea that existing fish friers should have their allocations increased from 3 cwt. to 4 cwt.?

Mr. Strachey: It is simply a question of priority.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are fish friers in areas such as Lancashire who are tied to a datum period allocation which is low because it reflects the period of the depression, and is it not fair to give these people such a chance to build up a worthwhile business as is given to any newcomer?

Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend should note that we have made a start in doing that by raising all allocations of under 3 cwt. to the 3 cwt. level.

Milk (Elderly People)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that there is continued disappointment felt by old people over the inadequacy of the milk ration in relation to their special needs; and if he will now increase the amount available to them.

Mr. Strachey: I sympathise with the old people who would like extra milk, but I am afraid that I could only give them more, out of present supplies, at the expense of other consumers.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that older people are increasingly troubled by digestive difficulties, and that an additional amount of milk does help to build them up in an illness? Could not he at least grant some concession to old people who are living alone?

Mr. Strachey: In these matters I feel bound to follow the advice of my medical advisers, and while I am sure that they would sympathise with the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member, they do not feel able to advise me to accede to it until and unless there are greater supplies available.

Onions

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that there is a large tonnage of onions available in Norfolk and Suffolk which it is already difficult for growers to dispose of, owing to the size of the current home grown crop, and that the forthcoming importation of 60,000 tons of onions from overseas will cause considerable prejudice and loss to the home growers; and what steps he is taking to meet this situation.

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Food what steps have been taken to delay the import of onions from the Continent to enable home growers to find a market.

Mr. Strachey: During the early winter months, most imported onions come from Holland. In view of the late and heavy crop of home-grown onions, the Dutch Government have agreed at our request to limit their exports of onions to this country until the middle of December to those consignments for which firm sales had already been affected by 28th October, when the arrangement was made.

Commander Maitland: Can the Minister say what quantity of onions will be available in those cases where firm sales have been arranged?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, not without notice, but it is a small part of the general transaction.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the Minister quite satisfied that the home crop will be disposed of before the imported crop has any effect on the home markets?

Mr. Strachey: Well, I would not like to give a guarantee to the last onion.

Linseed

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is negotiating for the 10,000 tons of linseed offered for sale by Uruguay.

Mr. Strachey: I am glad to say that we have just bought 20,000 tons, with a possibility of a further 10,000 tons, of linseed from Uruguay.

Mr. Turton: Can the Minister say when the delivery of this most welcome linseed can be expected?

Mr. Strachey: Shipment is to be made before 31st December.

Sir Frank Sanderson: In view of the considerable reduction in the price of cereals in America and other parts of the world, and the likelihood that oil seed prices will also be reduced, will the Minister give an assurance that he will not enter into any long-term contracts without a break clause?

Mr. Strachey: I could not possibly give a sweeping assurance of that kind to the House, but I can assure hon. Members that my advisers are watching this very welcome trend of which the hon. Member speaks. We shall certainly take these considerations into full account in any short or long-term purchases that we make.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Would it not be much better for the consumer if the Minister would stop bulk purchasing and State trading and allow Mincing Lane and the Baltic Exchange to get on with the job in healthy competition?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the improving world supplies of linseed oil as indicated by the steadily falling world prices, he will recommend to the International Emergency Food Council that participating countries should now be free to make purchases as and when they think fit.

Mr. Strachey: I understood that the International Emergency Food Council have already announced that linseed and linseed oil are freed from allocation.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister give an assurance that he will not find himself forced to take up any allocation at a higher price than he would need to pay by buying small quantities at widely spaced intervals.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. There will be no allocation under the I.E.F.C.

Retail Business, Reading (Licence)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food what advice was received by him as to the possibility of charges of offences against the Food (Licensing of Retailers) Order, 1945, being brought against Mr. F. V. Lambert in respect of the sale by him at


8, Lavender Road, Reading, of specified foods without a licence between 27th August, 1947, and 21st June, 1948.

Mr. Strachey: My legal advisers' views were that while there was evidence on which it would have been possible to prosecute Mr. Lambert, the offence would be regarded as purely technical and it was neither necessary nor desirable to prosecute. There was, I repeat, no question of my legal advisers' views being overruled.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman qualify the answer which he gave to my supplementary question last week to the effect that the advice he had received was that a prosecution would not succeed?

Mr. Strachey: The advice I was given—I am sorry if I did not represent it clearly to the House—was that my legal advisers were against a prosecution.

Cheese Imports and Exports

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Food how much cheese was imported from the U.S.A. to Britain in the last six months; how much cheese was exported from this country to the U.S.A. in the same period; and what were the values in sterling of these imports and exports.

Mr. Strachey: Imports of cheese from the U.S.A. in the six months ended September amounted to 9,262 tons valued at about £2,900,000. No cheese was exported from this country to the U.S.A. during that period. But we do hope to export a few tons of our very special English cheese, such as Stilton, in order to earn dollars. In general we intend to continue the policy of exporting luxuries in order to pay for necessities.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely convinced that we cannot get this cheese, which we have been importing from the United States, from Empire sources?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, naturally we should buy cheese or anything else from sterling sources before we went to a dollar source. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would ensure that.

Eggs

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food how the numbers of eggs handled

by registered egg-packing stations in the first nine months of this year compares with the same period of 1947; and how the allocation of eggs to ordinary consumers compares for the same periods.

Mr. Strachey: One hundred and sixty-six million dozen eggs were handled by packing stations in the United Kingdom during the first nine months of this year compared with 127 million dozen in the same period last year, an increase of 31 per cent. Allocations averaged 63 and 47 respectively, an increase of 34 per cent.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister satisfied that the egg-packing stations will have the capacity to deal with the further increase for which we hope in home production next season?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, I think so.

Bacon Pigs (Price)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister Food if, in view of the large quantity of potatoes which will be available for pig feeding this winter and the limitations of the digestive system of young pigs, he will arrange to pay the full price of 36s. a score for bacon pigs weighing up to 12 score dead weight.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The feeding of pigs to heavier weights would merely increase the drain on feedingstuffs without yielding a corresponding increase in the weight of bacon produced.

Mr. Hurd: Is not the Minister aware that if good use is to be made of these potatoes for pig feeding, if we have a big surplus, it can only be done in the case of heavier weight pigs?

Mr. Strachey: My advisers take the view that it would be a waste of feeding-stuffs to go to a higher weight than this, but no doubt it is a matter of opinion.

Self-Suppliers' Pigs (Forms)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the form headed, "Ministry of Food, Self Suppliers of Pigs Scheme," and containing on two pages of foolscap forms of application and declaration by an individual wishing to have a pig killed and by the person who is to kill the pig together with a number of Notes (a) to (k); that after the above form has been completed and rendered, a further form of licence to slaughter is issued with


several printed conditions numbered (a) to (e) together with a form of declaration by the slaughterman; and whether he will discontinue the use of these long and complicated forms, substituting, if necesary, a simple licence to kill a pig.

Mr. Strachey: The new forms were introduced, in consequence of the findings of the Bodinnar Committee, as one of the measures designed to check the serious abuses which had crept into the self-suppliers' scheme. I am glad to say that my information is that the new arrangements have effected a marked improvement. They must be detailed if they are to serve their purpose effectively and so I am not prepared to stop using them.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Has the Minister studied the notes on the first of those two forms and does he approve of note (c), which says:
'Fed' means serve with food at feeding times. It does not mean sending or bringing food for some other person to feed the pig.
Is he aware of the intense irritation caused to all concerned by these forms, does he not appreciate the extra work put on his own officials, and do these forms do any good to anybody?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. The situation before these forms were introduced was one which caused concern in every part of the House, because this self-suppliers' scheme was leading to rather grave abuses. On the other hand, it would have been a great pity to scrap the self-suppliers' scheme. The only possible way was to tighten up the regulations.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the very great feeling of dissatisfaction among certain butchers who have practically been driven out of this branch of the trade by the new regulations, and will he consider the hardship involved?

Mr. Strachey: If there are individual cases where a butcher should be made an authorised slaughterer, I shall be most willing to consider them.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the reduced supplies of bacon from Canada, why do the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture make it difficult for people— especially small people—to keep one or two pigs? Does not the right hon.

Gentleman realise that if only he would withdraw some of his restrictions, thousands more pigs would be kept all over the country?

Mr. Strachey: What we do is to make it possible for the self—supplier to draw rationed feedingstuffs.

Food Preparation (Regulations)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of the recent cases in which fines were inflicted after it had been established in court that certain meat killing and preparation for made up food had been conducted under filthy conditions, he will review his regulations and their enforcement, and if necessary make stronger regulations and enforce them rigorously in all food preparation depots.

Mr. Strachey: The conditions under which food is prepared for sale for human consumption and governed by the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, which is enforced by local authorities. The cases to which my hon. Friend refers have not disclosed defects in this Act, but they underline the importance of rigorous enforcement, and my officers have instructions to co-operate to the fullest extent with officers of the local authorities with a view to discovering and bringing to justice—as I am glad to say has been done in this case—those who, for personal gain, disregard the public welfare in this way.

Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement which he has just made will give great satisfaction to people all over the British Isles, because of the terrible revelations in the cases to which I have referred in my Question?

Mr. Burke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most revolting case in Lancashire has been going on for four months, whereby diseased and germ-ridden animal carcases have been supplied in 24 towns to 250 shops? Is he satisfied that his enforcement officers have been aware of this and really awake to the facts, because this case was discovered only by accident? Does he consider that these fines constitute justice, and is it really true that the welfare of the public is safeguarded against a recurrence?

Mr. Strachey: My enforcement officers, in general, only co-operate with the local


authorities in this matter, because it is on the latter that the responsibility for enforcement rests. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, in which he does not think that the action taken has been sufficiently rigorous, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Royle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Press in Lancashire last week received hundreds of letters from members of the public showing very great concern about the cases referred to? Cannot some more immediate and serious steps be taken to restore the confidence of the public in manufactured foods?

Mr. Strachey: There is nothing to prevent the local authorities all over Lancashire or elsewhere from taking the most vigorous action in this matter, wherever they think they have a case, and we shall be very happy to co-operate with them.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not the only way to restore confidence, to a large extent, to issue another Statutory Rule and Order dealing with the slaughter of horses for human consumption?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that rigorous enforcement would include adequate penalties, and is he not aware that the penalties recently enforced in some cases struck ordinary, common-sense people as being totally inadequate in the circumstances?

Mr. Strachey: As regards the penalties imposed in these cases, there was one set of fines amounting to £2,000 and another of £1,700, which are not light.

Christmas Dried Fruit

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Food whether he will arrange for Christmas dried fruit to be allocated on the basis of sugar registrations alone, thus guaranteeing every registered person an equal share in whatever supplies of dried fruit are available.

Mr. Strachey: Ninety per cent. of every allocation of dried fruit already goes to retailers who receive supplies on the basis of their sugar registrations. The remaining 10 per cent. goes to other retailers, who, although not holding sugar registrations, handled dried fruit before the war, and I can see no good reason for withdrawing their supplies.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I discovered in my constituency last week that some housewives have been able to get as much as 1 lb. or more per ration book, while others have been able to get only a few ounces on their sugar registration, and does he think it is fair to those housewives who receive only the smaller amount? Would it not be very much fairer to make the allocation only on the sugar ration, so that everybody gets a fair amount?

Mr. Strachey: As my hon. Friend knows, that would involve taking the remaining 10 per cent. away from those who always dealt in this class of goods before the war, which would cause a great deal of inconvenience to their regular customers.

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister make a further investigation in order to see why it is that some agricultural areas get far less dried fruit than other parts of the country, as, for instance the North of England, which gets far less than Scotland?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree that that is the case.

Tinned Tomatoes

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food on what basis allocations of tinned tomatoes on points are made to various parts of the country; and when the last allocation was made to the Leicester district.

Mr. Strachey: Tinned tomatoes are now privately imported under licence and distribution is not controlled by my Department. The last release of Ministry-owned stocks was made in March and April to first-hand distributors. The Ministry has never allocated these foods below the first-hand stage, so I do not know how much went to Leicester.

Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether any distinction is made in these allocations between the multiple shops which have branches and the small shopkeepers who have no branches? Is he aware that, in certain instances, the multiple shops are selling these tinned tomatoes, whereas the small shopkeepers cannot get them to sell?

Mr. Strachey: No allocations are now made. These goods are imported under private arrangements, and are distributed in the ordinary way.

Slaughterhouse, Langney

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Food what area the Langney slaughterhouse, Eastbourne, serves; and what is the maximum distance animals are brought to Langney to be slaughtered.

Mr. Strachey: This slaughterhouse supplies sup-home—killed meat for the county borough of Eastbourne, the urban district of Seaford and the rural district of Hailsham. Normally, fat stock for this slaughterhouse are not brought from farther afield than 200 miles or so, but, during September, 1948, some cattle were sent from Darlington (300 miles) and Belford (380 miles). This was at a time when fairly large numbers of fat stock were coming forward for slaughter in the North Eastern area, while supplies in the South were relatively low.

Mr. Taylor: Does it not seem ridiculous that cattle are brought from Wales and Darlington to this slaughterhouse to be slaughtered, and is the Minister satisfied that they are brought there in reasonably good conditions? If not, will he look into that matter before he gives his support to the Anti-Blood Sports Bill?

Mr. Strachey: I did not quite follow the last part of the question.

Mr. Taylor: I asked the Minister whether he would see that these cattle which are brought long distances are transported under reasonable conditions, and, if they are not, before he signs the Anti-Blood Sports Bill will he see that they are?

Mr. Strachey: I am satisfied that it is necessary, to equalise the supply of meat over the country at certain seasons, to bring cattle a long way. It is very important that they should be brought under humane conditions, and we will do all we can to ensure that.

HIGHGATE TUBE STATION (CONDITIONS)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take on the representations made to him

on 7th October by the Hornsey Chamber of Commerce with regard to conditions at Highgate tube station.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The representations made by the Hornsey Chamber of Commerce relate to matters which are the concern of the British Transport Commission, to whom they have been sent.

Mr. Gammans: Has the Minister no authority to deal with this station, the approaches to which are among the most difficult, and probably the most dangerous in certain weather, of those at any London station?

Mr. Barnes: I understand that these representations referred to escalators, the lighting of a footpath and a handrail to a wooden staircase, and I think those are obviously matters of management.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Goods Vehicles (Consumers' Need)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that applicants for "B" licences are being called upon by the licensing authority for goods vehicles to provide verbal evidence of consumers' need; and, in view of the difficulty of providing this evidence, whether he will take steps to make affidavits acceptable to the authority.

Mr. Barnes: I have no authority to interfere with the discretion of the licensing authorities for goods vehicles to require such evidence of need as they consider necessary. An appeal against the decision of a licensing authority lies only to the appeal tribunal set up under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, which in a recent case expressed the view that written evidence of need is generally of little value.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although written evidence may be of little value, with which I agree, applicants who go before the licensing authority are called upon to bring with them their potential customers, who are not prepared to leave their own businesses to give evidence on consumers' needs? In the circumstances, why could not a sworn affidavit be acceptable to the licensing authority?

Mr. Barnes: The chairmen of these licensing authorities usually give an indication to the applicants of the procedure to be followed in these cases, and I have no jurisdiction to direct them.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that these are cases in which one would think that a sworn affidavit would be acceptable, and will he make representations to the licensing authorities on what they should do in the matter?

Mr. Barnes: Evidence of that kind would be given proper consideration, but it does not follow automatically that it would ensure the granting of a licence.

Maintenance

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent he intends to relax in the near future the present restrictions on road maintenance; whether he will give any indication of the reports which he has received from highway authorities during recent months as to the inadequacy of present maintenance and the degree to which liabilities which will have to be met in due course at an increased cost are accumulating.

Mr. Barnes: While I have received some representations from highway authorities about the present restrictions on road maintenance, I consider that the objects of the Government's policy have been achieved without any serious effect on the general condition of the roads. I hope that it may be possible to increase the funds available for road maintenance next year, but my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Estimate for the Roads, etc., Vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Typewriters

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the costs and efficiency of British business are seriously affected by the present scarcity of British typewriters; and whether, in view of this and that typewriters are to some extent being imported into this country from Germany, he will arrange for a larger proportion of British output of typewriters to be made available in this country.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): The export target for British

typewriters was reduced some months ago to 25 per cent. of production, as the home demand for them was greater than the supply. This reduction in exports and the expected increase in home production should ease the position.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the position has not eased, and that there is still a very large demand for these typewriters; and, in view of the fact that British typewriters are both better and cheaper than the imported ones, will he not do something further in the matter?

Mr. Strauss: I think the position has eased, and that there will be a substantial increase in the supply of these typewriters in the coming months.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who at this moment is sitting on one of the back benches with, perhaps, some significance, told me in April this year that at least 10,000 British typewriters had been ordered by and supplied to Government Departments, and could he tell us what is the present position with regard to typewriters ordered for Government Departments?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir, not without notice.

Jet Engines (Foreign Sales)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Supply how many British jet engines have been supplied to countries which are not signatories to the Brussels Pact.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: One hundred and seventy-four, Sir.

Mr. Gammans: Will the Minister say to what countries these jet engines were supplied, and is he aware that in yesterday's parade in Moscow the Russian Air Force were presumably using jet fighters of British production supplied by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Strauss: The countries concerned are the Argentine, Canada, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.

Establishment, Chislehurst

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Supply if he will give, in convenient


categories, the number of persons employed by his Department at Foxbury, Chislehurst; and what is the annual cost of that establishment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Five hundred and fifty-four persons are employed at Foxbury, Chislehurst, in the following categories; officer grades 15, technical grades 106, administrative, clerical and typing staff 52, miscellaneous non-industrial grades 34, industrials 347. The annual cost of the establishment is, approximately, £200,000.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that I am credibly informed that the waste of manpower, the waste of time, and the waste of the taxpayers' money is scandalous at this establishment; and will he set up an inquiry under an independent chairman to look into the whole working of the establishment?

Mr. Strauss: I have no evidence to confirm the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman.

Telephone Switchboard Equipment

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Supply whether, since over 450,000 of the public are waiting for the installation of telephones throughout the country, and the delay in these matters is largely attributable to the shortage of switchboard equipment, which is being exported, he will reduce the export of switchboard equipment and ensure maximum efficiency at home.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: No, Sir. I am afraid we cannot afford to reduce exports, but output is increasing and more equipment should be available next year for both the home telephone service and export.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that would-be subscribers are informed that it may be two years before they have the chance of having the telephone installed; and would it not increase the efficiency of the country far more, both industrially and for the public generally, to have telephones available here instead of, for the sake of a few thousands pounds, exporting the necessary switchboard equipment? There is no need to starve this country of such equipment.

Mr. Strauss: This is one of our most valuable exports, and I do not think it would be useful to reduce the amount of such equipment which is exported.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the very unsatisfactory answer given by the Minister, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise a vigorous protest about this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment. It is absolutely damnable.

Iron and Steel Companies (Overseas Subsidiaries)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply which of the companies listed in the Third Schedule of the Iron and Steel Bill have wholly-owned subsidiaries in overseas countries.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: As certain subsidiaries of Third Schedule companies are registered overseas, particulars of the ownership of their share capital are not readily available, and my information as to wholly-owned subsidiaries may therefore be incomplete. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those companies which, according to my present information, have wholly-owned overseas subsidiaries.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that the staffs of these overseas companies view with great dismay the prospect of becoming servants of the Labour Government?

Following are the names:

Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds Ltd.
Hadfields Ltd.
John Lysaght Ltd.
John Summers &amp; Sons Ltd.
Richard Thomas &amp; Baldwins Ltd.
Stewarts &amp; Lloyds Ltd.
The Millom &amp; Askam Hematite Iron Co. Ltd.

Nuffield-Austin Merger

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Supply whether he intends to make representations to the Board of Trade under the Monopolies Act, 1948, in respect of the Nuffield—Austin merger.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: No, Sir.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does not a very high proportion of the production of the 10–15 h.p. cars now come under this control?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir, but action is only taken where a Government Department believes there is some abuse by the concentration in a few hands of a high proportion of production. We have no reason to believe that any such possibility exists here, or is likely to.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all informed opinion in the motor industry strongly approves the standardisation of the components which is likely to accrue?

Stored Vehicles, Germany

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Supply how many redundant ex—Army and R.A.F. vehicles are now stored in the British zone of Germany and what arrangements are being made to dispose of them.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: On 30th September, the latest date for which figures are available, the total number of vehicles was 18,225. Of these, 6,448 were sold and awaiting delivery, 2,535 were catalogued for sale, 7,194 were being examined for cataloguing, and 2,048 remained to be dealt with.

Mr. Bowden: Would my right hon. Friend say when all of these vehicles are likely to be cleared—that is, those that are usable?

Mr. Strauss: I cannot say. The Service Departments are continually throwing up vehicles for sale, and it must be appreciated that a large number of these vehicles have been so cannibalised that they are no better than scrap.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Can the Minister tell us how many of these 6,000 vehicles were sold to Continental buyers and how many to British buyers?

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Who is responsible for maintaining and looking after these vehicles?

Mr. Strauss: The Control Commission act on our behalf in this respect.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Cement Plants

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Works how many schemes have been sanctioned for the building of new cement plants during the twelve

months ended 30th September, 1948; how many approved for construction or major extensions to existing plants; how many of these are for independent companies; and how many for firms in the cement combine associated with the cement marketing organisation.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): Sanction has been given in the 12 months for the building of one new cement plant and for a major extension to an existing plant. In the former, but not in the latter, case the firm sells through the Cement Marketing Company. Both firms are members of the Cement Makers' Federation.

Mr. Cooper: In view of the information he has given, would my right hon. Friend further consider the proposals put to him by myself something like 12 months ago, in view of the great advantage that scheme had in probably reducing the price of cement and improving the conditions in which the workers would operate?

Mr. Key: On both occasions when this matter was brought to my attention, I sent an invitation through the hon. Gentleman to the promoter of the scheme to discuss this project with officials of my Ministry, but that offer was not taken up.

The Mall (Road Surface)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the unsatisfactory state of the road surface in The Mall; and when this road is likely to be repaired.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. It will be repaired next year.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that the surface of The Mall, which is maintained by his Department, is worse than that of any of the other Westminster roads, which are maintained by the City Council, and would he endeavour to keep the standard of the roads in the Royal Parks at least up to the level of the municipal ones?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, and in due time we shall surpass it.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what time next year—the beginning or the end?

Mr. Key: I cannot say what time next year.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the Minister aware that as a result of driving down The Mall this morning, I have been suffering from aggravated oscillation ever since, and will he repair the road this year instead of next?

Mr. Key: Aggravated oscillation—I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Farmers (Grading)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many farmers are classified "C" at the present time; and how many of these are under supervision within the terms of the Agriculture Act, 1947.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): The extraction bf particulars of grading would involve the detailed examination of committee records, and I do not feel justified in asking committees to undertake this additional work at the present time. Three hundred and fifty—six farmers have so far been placed under supervision orders under the Agriculture Act, 1947.

Potash

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give an assurance that adequate supplies of potash fertiliser will he available to farmers for the 1949 season.

Mr. G. Brown: All our potash comes from abroad; but provided that imports arrive as arranged, there should be sufficient to meet farmers' requirements for the 1949 season.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Is not the Minister aware that a large amount of potash is available in Germany? Cannot he impress upon other members of the Government that action should be taken now to see that the potash is here in time?

Mr. Brown: I understand that only a small amount is available in the bizone, and that is what we are in fact getting.

Mr. Hurd: Will some of it be sulphate of potash, which, I believe, in some cases is more useful than muriate of potash?

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODING, HUNTINGDONSHIRE

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the villages of Alconbury and Alconbury Weston, Hunts, have been flooded several times in recent years by the overflowing of the Alconbury brook; and what steps it is intended to take to prevent these villages from being flooded in future.

Mr. G. Brown: I am aware that there has been flooding in both these villages, which are built in the flood path of the Alconbury brook. The River Great Ouse Catchment Board is at present surveying the watercourse to determine what remedial measures are desirable and practicable.

Mr. Renton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the River Great Ouse Catchment Board were requested some time ago to do something about this, and can he give us some idea when the work is likely to be commenced?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I can only say that at the moment they are examining what is desirable and practicable. The hon. Member will know that there are many difficulties, having regard to the sites of the villages. All these things are being considered, and as soon as it is decided what can reasonably be done, it will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND HUNGARY (BRITISH COUNCIL)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the activities of the British Council in Czechoslovakia and Hungary will be continued in the future; and what number of officers, lecturers and clerical staff are now maintained in those countries, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): It is not proposed to discontinue these British Council activities. The London-appointed establishment of the British Council in Czechoslovakia is: general and specialist officers, 13; teaching and lecturing, 9; clerical, 3; the corresponding figures for Hungary are 6, 5 and 2.

Sir P. Hannon: In view of the changed circumstances in the political outlook of


these countries, does the Minister think it is fitting that the British taxpayer should pay for the benevolent work of the British Council there?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend regards these contacts as definitely useful.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

Holy Places (Protection)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a recent report has been received from the United Nations Administration in Palestine on measures in operation for the safety and security of the Holy Places; and if he is satisfied that precautions adopted are adequate.

Mr. Mayhew: The Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator in Palestine dated 16th September contains a section on "Protection of the Holy Places" in which the hon. Member will find a short account of the damage done, the efforts made to avert it and the prospects for the future. No precautions will be adequate as long as intermittent shelling continues in the Jerusalem area. His Majesty's Government will continue to support all efforts to make the truce effective and to restore peaceful conditions.

British Subject (Imprisonment)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government, either alone or through U.N.O., to secure the immediate release of Mr. Sylvester, who is now a prisoner in Jewish hands; what action he intends to take; and whether he will give an assurance that Mr. Sylvester and the other British subjects kidnapped with him will receive full compensation for any injury suffered out of the Palestine assets now held by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mayhew: Pending the conclusion of the hearing of Mr. Sylvester's appeal, which began on 3rd November, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) on 1st November.

Mr. Low: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the validity of the legal proceedings to which he refers? Will he give me an answer to the second part of my Question?

Mr. Mayhew: We do not recognise the right of the Israeli Government to stage this trial, but in the man's own interests we feel that we must see that he gets the best possible defence. On the subject of compensation, it is true that theoretically we hold the assets of the Palestine Government pending the establishment of recognised successor authorities. In fact, however, there are no assets but, on the contrary, liabilities.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does my hon. Friend agree that British subjects resident in foreign countries owe the same local allegiance to the Governments in whose territories they are as aliens owe to this Government when they reside in this country? Will he say, further, whether he has any reason to believe that the trials so far held have not been fair and have not resulted in justice being done?

Mr. Mayhew: In reply to the first point, of course we do not recognise the Israeli Government. I will not comment on the second point since the trial is sub judice.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we be told whether the British counsel who went out for Mr. Sylvester was refused right of audience at the original trial; and secondly, whether the British counsel, a different one I think, who is now in Jersualem has been granted right of audience in the so-called court of appeal? Surely we can be told those two things now?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not a fact that the allegations made against this man, if they were true, would only be true in that the incidents occurred on United Nations territory? What steps have his Majesty's Government taken with the United Nations to get them to look after the interests of this man?

Mr. Mayhew: I really cannot comment on this while the case is subject to appeal.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would my hon. Friend please reply to my first supplementary question concerning the duties of British subjects resident abroad?


Secondly, will he say whether, of the three men who were accused and originally tried, two were acquitted and released?

Mr. Mayhew: The answer to the second point is "Yes, Sir." I have already given the answer to the first point, namely, that we do not recognise the Israeli Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Economic Programme

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to make public the details of the production and export targets and investment programme of the Four-Year Plan relating to Western Germany recently submitted to the O.E.E.C. in Paris.

Mr. Mayhew: The final version of the bizonal programme will be published as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the discussions in Paris. It will be appreciated that all the individual programmes recently submitted are in the nature of working documents for the preparation of a comprehensive programme and as such subject to modification in the light of the discussions in the O.E.E.C.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the general apprehension in the country that the plan for Germany is to have priority in many senses over the plan for Britain itself, does not my right hon. Friend think it desirable that the working documents themselves should be submitted to Parliament before they are finally adopted?

Mr. Mayhew: There is no such priority and no such apprehension. The question, therefore, does not arise.

Prices and Wages

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what commodities are still subject to maximum prices orders in Western Germany; and what has been the average increase in the permitted price of these commodities since the introduction of currency reform.

Mr. Mayhew: As the answer is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The commodities which are subject to maximum price orders are listed as follows, with an indication of the price increases which have taken place since currency reform:

Hard coal and coke—30 per cent. increase.
Brown coal—35/50 per cent. increase.
Iron and Steel—No change.
Iron ore and pig iron—No change.
Scrap—No change.
Rolled and forged products—No change.
Petrol, oil and liquid fuel—No change.
Electricity and gas—No change.
Water—20 per cent. increase.
Fertilisers—110/210 per cent. increase.
Insecticides—No change.
Soap—No change.
Insulin—No change.
Penicillin—74 per cent. reduction.

It will be seen from the above that it is not practicable to state a figure for the average increase in price.

Non-ferrous metals are also subject to maximum price orders, but in view of the large number of such items and the considerable variations in prices of the individual items since currency reform, it is again not practicable to give a figure of the average decrease for non-ferrous metals as a whole which would be of any value. The changes in price of the various metals are given accordingly:

Lead—61 per cent. increase.
Zinc—40 per cent. increase.
Copper—23 per cent. increase.
Cadmium—8 per cent. increase.
Nickel—5 per cent. increase.
Aluminium—31 per cent. increase.
Tin—33 per cent. increase.
Antimony—12 per cent. increase.
Bismuth—15 per cent. increase.
Magnesium—No change.
Cobalt—19 per cent. reduction.
Mercury—32 per cent. reduction.

It is not possible to form a clear picture of the extent of the controls exercised with regard to the prices of basic commodities without taking into account the commodities which are still subject to fixed price orders.

The following list gives details of the principal commodities (with their increases in price) which come into this category:

Grain and grain products—3/28 per cent. increase.
Bread—5/35 per cent. increase.
Potatoes—40 per cent. increase.
Oilseeds—100 per cent. increase.
Sugar—No change.
Butter—No change.
Slaughter cattle—18/37 per cent. increase.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the average rise in the prices of footwear and clothing respectively in Western Germany since the removal of the price—stop in April, 1948; and what has been the average increase in wages during the same period.

Mr. Mayhew: The cost of footwear in the Western zones has risen by about 55 per cent.; clothing by about 25 per cent. These figures, however, are very approximate, owing to the considerable price variations in the numerous qualities of both items.
With regard to the second part of the Question, it is thought that approximately one-third of the wage earners have increased their wages by negotiation by up to 15 per cent. since April, 1948. Weekly wages have increased on the average by 9 per cent. for males and 11 per cent. for females as against increases for workers paid by the hour by 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. respectively. The greater increase in weekly wages is accounted for by the longer hours worked generally by wage earners.

Mr. Warbey: Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter again, because according to information which I have had from reliable people on the spot, the increase in prices has been more of the order of 300 per cent., and there are obvious signs of serious inflation developing in Western Germany? Will he, therefore, seek further information on this matter?

Mr. Mayhew: I did stress that my figures were very approximate, but I have no reason to suppose that they vary one side more than the other. I would emphasise that the great difference in the last few months is that shoes and clothes

can be obtained at legal prices instead of through the black market.

Mr. Henry Strauss: In his original answer and in his answer to the supplementary question, the Minister said, "Very approximate." Surely, what he means is, "Approximate only "?

Mr. Piratin: Can the Under-Secretary say, in the light of his answer, what steps the Government in Bizonia have taken in order to prevent this inflationary tendency?

Mr. H. Strauss: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my supplementary question?

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN TRADE (SWEDISH PROPOSAL)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British representative on the Economic Commission for Europe opposed a Swedish proposal for the appointment of a committee to study intra-European trade in relation to industrial development.

Mr. Mayhew: The Swedish proposal was an amendment to a recommendation put forward that a committee should be set up under the Economic Commission for Europe to consider problems relating to the expansion of trade between European countries and between Europe and other parts of the world. After a full discussion the recommendation, without the amendment, was unanimously adopted.
The amendment proposed that the new committee should, in addition, cover production problems. The majority view was that the creation of further committees for this purpose would merely entail duplication of the work of existing committees of the Economic Commission for Europe, and was, therefore, unnecessary.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the connection between trade and industrial development plans and the admitted dependence of the success of the Marshall Plan on a substantial increase in East—West trade, will my hon. Friend instruct our representative to adopt a positive attitude towards proposals of this character?

Mr. Mayhew: I agree with the assumption in the supplementary question, but I deny that we have not taken a positive attitude to the proposal. The only reason


we turned this down was that it would be an unnecessary duplication of existing machinery.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-BURMANS (BRITISH CITIZENSHIP)

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that many Anglo-Burmans are finding difficulty in proving their claim to British citizenship owing to the almost total destruction of records in Burma; and what steps he is taking to give them the assistance they require.

Mr. Mayhew: Although the records in Burma have been destroyed it is possible to obtain from the Commonwealth Relations Office records of marriages celebrated in Burma under the Christian Marriage Act and of births of children of European British subjects. Where despite the absence of a record at the Commonwealth Relations Office, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the parents of an Anglo-Burman were validly married, it is the practice to give him the benefit of the doubt and to regard him as having retained British nationality if his father or paternal grandfather was born in British territory outside Burma.

Mr. Nicholson: While that answer is satisfactory, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Anglo-Burman community reports that those conditions are not being carried out and are very concerned about it? Will he receive a deputation from them?

Mr. Mayhew: I will certainly look into any information which the hon. Gentleman has, and will consider receiving a deputation

Oral Answers to Questions — The ARGENTINE (TRADE DISCUSSIONS)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations with the Argentine Government on the purchase of meat and other articles of food, in view of the termination of the existing agreement at the end of the present year.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): My right hon. and

learned Friend has invited Senor Miranda to visit London for trade discussions, and I am glad to say that he has accepted the invitation and has stated that he intends to come directly Senor Bramuglia returns to Argentina.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITY OF CAEN: INVITATION TO MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have been invited by the Rector and by the President and Members of the Council of the University of Caen to go there next Saturday to receive an honorary degree, as Speaker of the House of Commons, as a recognition of the collection of books which the House presented to that University last year. I therefore ask the indulgence and leave of the House to be absent for this purpose.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am quite sure that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will at once acquiesce in your absence, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of your visit to the University of Caen to receive this distinction. I am sure the House would wish me to say that they are very glad indeed that this distinction is to be conferred upon you, for we all realise that we shall have a reflected share of the credit which is bestowed. We have received the news with pleasure, and we hope very much that you will have a happy and pleasurable journey.

Captain Crookshank: May we on this side of the House also congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the distinction which is to be conferred upon you, and say that we feel, as the Lord President said, that the honour which you get as our spokesman also reflects some credit upon ourselves.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Motion relative to Standing Orders of which notice has been given by Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Bevan and Mr. Secretary Woodburn may be made at the time of Public Business notwithstanding that it relates in part to Standing Orders relating to Private Business."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

BILL PRESENTED

CIVIL DEFENCE BILL

"to make further provision for Civil Defence," presented by Mr. Ede; supported by Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Bevan, Mr. Key, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. Younger; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

STANDING ORDERS (AMENDMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the new Standing Order relating to Public Business hereinafter stated in Part I of the Schedule be made; That the several Amendments to Standing Orders and new Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter in Part II of the Schedule be made, and that in the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, Standing Order 191 "Tolls and charges in the nature of a tax" be repealed:

SCHEDULE

PART I

NEW STANDING ORDER RELATIVE TO PUBLIC BUSINESS

In relation to Private Bills, Provisional Order Bills and Bills introduced under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, or the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, the Standing Orders relating to public money shall have effect subject to any exceptions prescribed by the Standing Orders of this House relating to Private Business in the case of provisions affecting the Exchequer Equalisation Grant under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948.

PART II

STANDING ORDERS RELATIVE TO PRIVATE BUSINESS

1. After Standing Order 156, page 195, line 3, at end, insert the following new Orders:

156A.—(Modification of practice as to charges on public revenue.)

In the case of a Private Bill, it shall not be necessary to comply with the Standing Orders and practice of this House relating to provisions authorising charges upon the Public Revenue, by reason only that the Bill contains provisions authorising expenditure by a local authority which would or might operate to increase the amount of any Exchequer Equalisation Grant under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948.

156B.—(Special clause to be inserted in Bills authorising expenditure affecting grants under Local Government Act, 1948.)

Where a Bill contains any provision authorising such expenditure as is mentioned in Standing Order 156A (Modification of practice as

to charges on public revenue) and the Standing Orders and practice of this House mentioned in that Standing Order have not been complied with in respect thereof, the Committee on the Bill shall insert therein a clause providing that the said expenditure shall not be taken into account in computing the expenditure of the local authority for the purposes of Section four or Section twenty (as the case may be) of the Local Government Act, 1948:

Provided that the Committee shall not be required to insert such a clause in respect of any such provision as aforesaid if a Report made on the Bill on behalf of the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State recommends that the expenditure authorised by that provision be taken into account as aforesaid.

2. Standing Order 168, page 201, line 16, at beginning, insert "Subject to the provisions of Standing Order 156A (Modification of practice as to charges on the public revenue)."

3. Standing Order 169, page 201, line 26, at end, add:
Provided that, for the purposes of this Order, a provision of a Bill shall not be deemed to involve a grant from any Government Department by reason only that it authorises expenditure by a local authority which would or might operate to increase the amount of any Exchequer Equalisation Grant under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948.

4. After Standing Order 190, page 210, line 5, at end, insert the following new Order:

191.—(Tolls and charges not in the nature of a tax. )

This House will not insist on its privileges with regard to any provision of a Private Bill sent down from the House of Lords, or returned by that House with amendments, on the ground that that provision authorises or affects—

(a) any toll or charge for services performed (not being in the nature of a tax); Or
(b) any local rate; or
(c) any expenditure by a local authority which, under the Local Government Act, 1948, falls to be taken into account in calculating the amount of any Exchequer Equalisation Grant payable to that authority tinder Part 1 or Part II of that Act.

5. Standing Order 219, page 222, line 26, after "House)," insert "156A (Modification of practice as to charges on public revenue)."

6. Standing Order 228A, page 229, line 21, at end, insert the following paragraph:
(3) Standing Order 156A (Modification of practice as to charges on public revenue) shall apply to Bills to confirm Provisional Orders issued under the Procedure Act subject to the modification that after the words 'local authority' there shall be inserted the words or altering the boundaries of the area of a local authority'.

7. After Standing Order 248, page 243, line 7, at end, insert the following new Order:

248A.—(Application of S.O. 156A and 191.)

Standing Orders 156A (Modification of practice as to charges on public revenue) and 191 (Tolls and charges not in the nature of a tax) shall apply to Bills introduced under the Special Procedure Act as they apply to Private Bills.—[King's Recommendation signified].—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

3.33 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The reason for this series of changes to Standing Orders was the passage into law earlier this year of the Local Government Act. Under that Act the old system of block grants running normally for five years was superseded by a system of Exchequer equalisation grants. This means that new expenditure by a local authority may have immediate effect on the grants it receives. It follows, therefore, that any Bill authorising increased expenditure by a local authority must be regarded as imposing a charge on public revenue. This in turn means that under our procedure all such Bills, public and private, must be supported by a Financial Resolution.
This matter was discussed, as the House will recollect, on 23rd March last, shortly before the Local Government Act received the Royal Assent. On behalf of the Government I then moved a Motion, which was accepted by the House without a Division, and that Motion waived temporarily the requirement of a Financial Resolution for certain Bills. During the Debate I gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that this matter would be examined and that in due course proposals would be made to the House. Those proposals are those I am moving and we are about to examine and discuss them.
Two types of Bills are involved—public and private. So far as public Bills are concerned no change in the usual procedure is proposed. In future, a Financial Resolution will be brought in to cover any provisions in a public Bill which for any reason may operate to increase the Exchequer equalisation grants. The purpose of Part I of the Schedule under the heading "New Standing Order relative to Public Business" is not to make any alteration in public Bill procedure but to give formal authority to the proposals which follow in Part II, which deals with procedure on private Bills.
I should perhaps at this point make it clear that the numbering of existing

Standing Orders referred to in the Motion is that of the latest edition, which was published on 2nd November and which perhaps not all hon. Members may have seen. Nevertheless, we thought we should follow the latest edition which is now published and the numbers referred to follow the numbering and the paging in the new publication.
For private Bills it is obvious, I think, and it became quite clear when we discussed the matter earlier this year, that the existing procedure must be changed. To attempt to combine the passage of a private Bill through the House with a Financial Resolution would be so awkward as virtually to stop this kind of legislation altogether, which neither the local authorities nor the Government nor, I feel sure, the House in any quarter, desire to see.
The first of the proposed Standing Orders under Part II of the Schedule, namely 156A, therefore dispenses with the normal financial resolution for this kind of Bill. It is not sufficient to leave the matter there, however. It is essential, if the rights of the Crown and the House are to be safeguarded as effectively as hitherto, that we should establish some alternative procedure. The proposals made to this end are set forth in a new Standing Order numbered 156B. This provides that where a private Bill which authorises increased expenditure by a local authority reaches its Committee stage, the Committee has to insert in it a Clause providing that the expenditure shall not be taken into account in computing the authority's exchequer equalisation grant unless the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland recommends that the Clause may be omitted. If, of course, the Committee think that the proposed expenditure should not rank for grant, they can still insert the Clause in spite of the recommendation of the Minister concerned.
It will be noted that though the formal procedure is different under the proposed Standing Order its effect will be the same as hitherto has been the case. Standing Order No. 78 does represent a self-denying ordinance on the part of hon. Members of this House in that it is not open to any hon. Member to propose a charge on the public revenue unless such a charge has previously been recommended by


the Crown, and even when a charge is so recommended it is still open to the House to reject the proposal if it is so minded. The new procedure which I am now proposing for adoption, it will be seen, continues this practice by another method. It may be argued—and one objection to the form which I now propose is—that it might appear that it will be a general rule for this protective Clause to be inserted. This, however, will not be the case. I think that, perhaps, in order to allay any anxiety on the part of local authorities, I should, on behalf of the Government, at this stage make that quite clear. The Government have no intention of departing from the original arrangements which were made for the local authorities when this Bill was projected and passing through the House.
I now come to Standing Orders 168, 169 and 190 which are in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Motion. All these are consequential to the passing, if the House agrees, of Nos. 156A and 156B. The addition which we propose to Standing Order 168 lays down that Clauses of a Private Bill need not be printed in italics merely because they might operate to increase the Exchequer equalisation grant. The new procedure which we propose, and which will be embodied in the Standing Orders to which I have referred, will make this unnecessary. Secondly, the addition to Standing Order 169 provides that because of the new procedure there is no need to refer to the effect on a Government grant of Clauses in a private Bill. Again, the acceptance of 156A and 156B renders it unnecessary for Standing Order 169 to apply.
As to Standing Order 191, the House will notice that there is already a No. 191; but if hon. Members will refer back to the Motion preceding the Schedule they will find that Standing Order 191 should be deleted. We propose here that a new Standing Order 191 should take its place. The new Order includes most of what appears in the old one, with additions which appear in the Schedule. This change will enable Bills of the kind under review to be taken, if necessary, in another place, notwithstanding that they may operate to impose a charge on public revenue. This aspect of such Measures, of course, will be dealt with when they reach this House.
The remaining proposals waive the requirement of a Financial Resolution for three other classes of Bills which are analogous to private Bills. These arc provisional order confirmation Bills, which are covered by paragraph 5, and will necessitate some additional words to Standing Order 219; Bills for the confirmation of Scottish provisional orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, which are covered by some additional words which we propose to Standing Order 228A; and Bills for the confirmation of orders under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, which are covered by the new Standing Order which we propose after 248A. None of these is, in a sense, important, in that Bills of this kind are not likely' in the future to be as numerous as they were in times gone by; although I understand they were not very numerous even then.
I may, perhaps, make two observations on these last changes. The first is, that we are proposing to abolish the Financial Resolution requirements here without substituting any other procedure for it, because it is our view, and we hope the House will agree, that the procedure which provisional orders of this kind, which later may need a confirming Bill procedure, go through before reaching this stage, is such that it is quite obvious that no Financial Resolution will be required, because they cannot get very far unless a Minister of the Crown, and, therefore, the Crown itself, has given confirmation for the possible imposition of an extra charge. So far as Scottish provisional orders are concerned, and expenditure by a local authority arises, there may be a charge where a local government boundary in Scotland is changed. As the House will remember, in England and Wales any future changes of that kind will be made on the recommendation of the Local Government Boundary Commission. I think I have covered the ground—briefly, I hope, but, nevertheless, as fully as is necessary—and I commend these changes to the House.

3.47 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I think everyone will agree that it is important that the House should get a complete understanding of, and pay very careful attention to, any matter that concerns its scrutiny and


control of public expenditure. Therefore, we are all indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the care which he has taken in the exposition of the matter. There are just one or two aspects of it to which I should like him to give further consideration, because it is a new procedure, and, therefore, we all want to know the method in which it will work. I fully appreciated—I am sure everyone in the House did—how the question of the public charge arose. If I may give my own understanding of it, to see if I have got it right, I would say that the provision in the local government Bill, the dealing with the relevant fraction, depends, of course, on the integer of the fraction, the bit above the line of the expenditure of the local authority that is divisible by the rateable value plus the proceeds of a £ in the £ rate; so that any increase in the integer of the fraction means an increase in the payment which a local authority will receive in the relevant case. One goes from that to the provision of the two safeguards which this House has always insisted upon when there is a question of a charge on public funds, first, that the recommendation of the Crown should be shown, and second, that there should be a Financial Resolution, which means consideration by a Committee of the whole House.
Of the second of these, the right hon. Gentleman has frankly said that it goes, and that it is not possible to find an alternative for it. But he is suggesting, as I understand the gist of his argument, that the procedure embodied in these alterations will provide a substitute for the Crown recommendations' being shown. It is on that point that I should like to hear just a little further. As I understand the procedure, when a private Bill—a Bill promoted by a local authority in the majority of cases—means that that local authority will go in for further expenditure, then the Bill will come to this House for a Second Reading in the ordinary way. If there is no report from either the Ministry of Health or the Scottish Office, then there is a direction, as I understand it, to the Select Committee that this Clause will be inserted, and the effect of the Clause will be that even if an increased expenditure takes place, none of it will come out of public funds.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Exchequer funds.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I agree. None of the increased expenditure will come out of Exchequer funds—public funds in that sense. If, on the other hand, there is a recommendation from the right hon. Gentleman's Department or from the Scottish Office, then the local authority will recoup some of its expenditure from the Exchequer funds. That obviously raises a new situation. I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to approach that problem. Hitherto, when there has been a question of the Crown's recommendation to be shown that, of course, has been on a matter of Government policy, and the Government are the Crown for this purpose, because the Crown really means the Executive, and, therefore, they are using the Crown's recommendation as a step to intensify their own policy in this House and put it before the House. We are not dealing with that situation. We are dealing with a local authority putting forward its policy.
There are, of course, at least two views which the right hon. Gentleman might have in approaching the matter—and when I say the right hon. Gentleman I mean any Minister of Health, as he will appreciate. One is to give the local authority a chance to put its views first before the House and then before the Select Committee; the other, that the proposal of the local authority should have his implementation and support. That is, that he is, if I may use a colloquial term, backing the local authority on the line of policy which the Bill shows. I should like to know whether the private Bill will then come forward with his backing, or merely that he will clear the way for it to have a run in this House.
The second point is: At what stage will the report come? I have been a Member of this House for a certain number of years, and, therefore, it is a long time since I have had to deal with the technical side of a private Bill in my professional capacity, but I seem to remember that it is a recognised procedure in a private Bill—it certainly was some years ago—for the Government Department concerned to make a report to the Select Committee that was considering the Bill. I do not see how that would be sufficient to deal with this procedure. It appears to me that, if the effect of this procedure is intended to be to replace the signifying of the Crown's recommendation, the report should be attached before the Bill comes


before this House for Second Reading, so that the House should have an opportunity of knowing whether this was a Bill in respect of which the local authority would receive recoupment in its expenses from the Exchequer or would not. That would certainly be a material matter for Members of this House to consider when deciding whether or not to give a private Bill a Second Reading. Therefore, I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would also let us know his views on that point.
I have refrained from making any further comment, because a good deal depends on the view which the right hon. Gentleman takes, and the view which it is intended should operate with regard to my first question. If the Ministries concerned are backing the Bill, obviously this House would not have to consider, as is its duty, the expenditure of public money but would have to consider the policy involved. It may be, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise—I do not want to raise hypothetical controversies—that differences of policy would come into being whichever party was in power and whichever party was in Opposition. Therefore, I should like at the moment to say that that is a point which wants watching, and I think that the Minister of Health will agree that it is a point upon which, at this stage when the new procedure is introduced, all quarters of the House would like enlightenment. I should be grateful if he would let us know his views, and the views of the Government on the points that I have raised.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: There is a good deal of apprehension still in the minds of local authorities about this new procedure. They feel that a change is necessary as a result of the passing of the Local Government Act, but they are certainly not welcoming this change with much enthusiasm. I have had representations made to me by some local authorities who feel that this procedure will to some extent cramp the initiative of local authorities. They feel, too, that because the position will now rest with the Ministers concerned and not primarily with the House of Commons, it will give Ministers greater powers than the local authorities feel they ought to

have. They have given the matter very careful consideration, and while they feel that they must accept this revised procedure, they are not at all happy about it, and are in fact very apprehensive. I make that point in order that it may be on record as expressing the view of some of the local authorities of this country.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Warbey: I should like some clarification on the question of how this new procedure will affect a certain type of private Bill, namely, a private Bill which changes the status of a local authority. If, for example, a non-county borough, such as Luton, were to promote a private Bill to become a county borough—and I think that I may say in passing that Members of both the present and past Governments have admitted that Luton has as good a claim to become a county borough as any non-county borough in the country—how far would the Standing Orders operate and how would they be operated? Such a Bill, would, of course, involve a very considerable increase in expenditure by a local authority becoming a county borough.
I would like to know whether the Order would apply in such a case, or whether it would be held that in fact a new authority was being created, and, therefore, the expenditure of the new county borough was not in the same category as the expenditure of the old non-county borough, which would cease to exist as a result of the success of the Bill. If such a Bill came under this procedure, we should like to know what attitude the Minister of Health would be likely to take. In view of the fact that increased expenditure would necessarily be involved, I take it that the Minister of Health would not withhold the recommendation that the Clause should not be inserted in the Bill, merely because of the fact that for other reasons perhaps he took the view that there was no case for such a Bill. I quite agree that he might have other reasons for opposing the Bill, but I take it that while opposing the Bill he would not withhold the recommendation in a case of this kind.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): With the permission of the House I should like to dispose of the last question first. It is rather an original one, so that if I am wrong I hope I shall be for


given. As I understand the situation, no alteration of the status of a local authority nor any alteration of its boundary can now take place without the initiative of the Minister himself. Consequently, if there were any changes in the revenues, if there were any charges imposed by the change upon the national revenues, the fact that the Minister would himself be moving the order would make it possible for it to be done. The whole question that is now raised by the alteration in the Standing Orders is: where should an additional charge upon the public revenues initiate? Should it initiate with the House itself, or should it initiate with a private body outside the House?
All we are seeking to do is to preserve the old convention that it is the Executive itself, that it is the Crown, which initiates charges upon the general revenues. It is because the 1948 Act, which makes the Treasury a ratepayer, might give the local authority, in promoting private Bills, power to attract money from the public revenues that this change is necessary. Therefore, it is only that part of their activity upon which the 1948 Act impinges which is being affected by the changes in the Standing Orders; all other things are, necessarily, unaffected.
Next, I should like to remove the apprehensions of some of my hon. Friends who appear to think that local authorities are put in a worse position by what we are now doing. That is not the case at all. Local authorities can gain but they cannot conceivably lose. As things were in the past, local authorities could not themselves initiate expenditure; but now, if the Minister of Health says he does not mind, then whatever additional powers they want would attract money from the general revenues, so that local authorities need not worry at all. As the procedure will go, there will be a Second Reading, at which it will be intimated that the safeguarding Clause will go in; then it will be considered in Committee, and it is at that stage that the Minister or the Secretary of State intimates whether he wishes the Clause to be waived.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) asked whether it would not be desirable to do so before the Second Reading. Well, as a general rule these Second Readings are formal matters: the real work is done in the

Select Committee where, as he himself recollected, the relevant Department makes its report on a suggested Bill; and it is at that stage that it seems to us, and to those experts who have been drafting these Amendments to Standing Orders, that it would be appropriate for the Minister to indicate his views to the Committee.
What does the Minister do when he indicates his views? All he really says is: "In our opinion these powers are of a kind which should enable them to rank for payment under the 1948 Act." In other words, his initiative would take away a disability that the local authority might suffer from if he did not exercise his initiative. It does not follow, of course, that the Committee would agree with him. The Committee could still say: "No, in our opinion these new powers are such that this particular local authority ought not to enjoy the additional grant under the 1948 Act."
What happened in the past was that the local authority asked the House for powers, got the powers, and paid for them out of local revenues. All that can happen in the future if the Committee accept the recommendation of the Minister of Health is, not only will they say that these additional powers shall be provided for out of local revenues, but to the extent that the Treasury is a ratepayer in that area, the Treasury itself will also contribute towards the expenses of the new powers. I hope I have not been over-elaborate, but I have desired to make it quite clear that local authorities need not worry.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a question—and a very important question it was—as to what kind of principles would guide the Minister in making his recommendation to the Committee. Now, it is very difficult, as I think the House will appreciate, to lay down general principles here, because we are in a new field; but normally, where the local authority would be coming for powers which are not entirely novel, and where they are powers which the House will already have conferred upon other local authorities, the Minister would recommend a waiver. Of course, if a local authority is going in for very novel powers involving quite considerable building and capital expenditure on a


large scale, then, obviously, the general revenues could not be asked reasonably to make a contribution to the local authority.
Where the activities lie normally within the field of local government activity, and where they have been enjoyed before, or where they are not of an entirely exceptional character, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland will, I should imagine, say: "In our opinion this ought to rank for grant in exactly the same way as every other part of the local authorities activities," because we would not desire to have so complicated an accountancy that a certain part of a local authorities expenditure could rank for this grant and other forms of expenditure could not. We should only wish to make a distinction in the accountancy where the distinction is established by the nature of the new powers.
I think the House will appreciate that this is very necessary, because the State is now a ratepayer to a very large extent—in some cases up to as much as 50 per cent. Therefore, it would be a grotesque situation if a local authority in that position could obtain from Parliament powers which would automatically attract from the Treasury as much as 50 per cent. of its own expenditure. I am sure the House will appreciate that we have examined this matter very carefully, and I hope I have managed to clear up any apprehensions that may have existed.

Captain Crookshank: As I understand it, this communication from the Minister to the Select Committee will enable the expenditure proposed to attract the grant from the State, and it follows from that that it is open to the Select Committee to decide whether or not that should be done. Suppose the Select Committee—this is rather hypothetical, and possibly there is no answer—in its wisdom says: "No, we do not think that this should attract a grant, although the Minister has expressed his view that he does not object." Under this new procedure will it be possible at any subsequent stage of

the Bill before this House to reverse on that point, the decision of the Select Committee? I am not sure that it would be competent, in view of the fact that we have moved out of an ordinary Money Resolution procedure. I wonder if thought has been given to that. Perhaps it is an elementary question to which I ought to know the answer but do not.

Mr. Bevan: I doubt very much whether it would be possible so to do. After all, the right of the Committee to refuse to accept the recommendation of the Minister is exactly the same as the right of any Committee of the House to refuse to accept a Financial Resolution. It is in no different position. It is the Crown that indicates the King's Recommendation, and it is the House which agrees or disagrees with the King's Recommendation. All that would happen is that the Crown, having intimated to the Committee that the Government were prepared to carry this expenditure, the Committee could still say: "No, we do not agree with the Government in this case." The situation has not been altered. I should have thought that that finished the matter, but I will look at it again. I doubt whether it could be reviewed at another stage. However, I will have a look at it, and if something further is required, we shall certainly do it.

Captain Crookshank: That is what I thought. I thought it would end it. I wondered what would be the position where the local authority, according to the Minister, should have a grant and the Select Committee did not agree. In that case the Minister would want to over-ride the Select Committee, which I do not think is possible as the matter stands.

Mr. Bevan: I will certainly have a look at it. I do not think this alters the power at any stage. I suppose that the Government could alter its financial recommendation at some subsequent stage but that the Committee could not. However, as I have said, I will certainly inquire into the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL STOCK BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the effect of the expiry of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Treasury in carrying the first-mentioned Act into execution; and
(b)the payment into the Exchequer of any sums recovered by the Crown under the said first-mentioned Act in respect of the rights of the Clearing Offices."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — CLEARING OFFICE (ITALY)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Clearing Office (Italy) Amendment Order, 1948, (S.I., 1948, No. 2091), dated 14th September, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 15th September in the last Session of Parliament, be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Captain Crookshank: I hope that the Financial Secretary will give some explanation of this order.

4.15 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): There is a short explanatory note on the back of the Instrument itself, but in response to the invitation which has been extended to me perhaps I might elaborate on it.
In July, 1936, when sanctions against Italy were raised, considerable arrears of trade debts were owing to U.K. creditors in respect of goods imported into Italy before sanctions were imposed. An Anglo-Italian Clearing Office was set up under Section I of the Debts Clearing

Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, into which was paid, in sterling, money due by U.K. debtors for goods of Italian origin imported into the U.K. In November, 1936, an agreement was reached with the Italian Government which provided for the distribution to U.K. creditors of the sterling received by the clearing; this was modified by a subsequent agreement made in 1938.
The agreement, so modified, automatically came to an end when Italy became an enemy, but the Treasury orders giving effect to it did not similarly terminate. No further distribution of sterling to U.K. creditors took place, but the paragraphs of the orders providing for payment for Italian goods to be made to the clearing remain in force in respect of the debts arising from Italian goods imported before Italy entered the war; in anticipation of the resumption of trade with Italy, a Treasury order was made in October, 1943, exempting Italian goods imported thereafter from the operations of the clearing. The clearing balances in hand in June, 1940, and its subsequent receipts became subject to Section 8 of the Trading with the Enemy Act and have accordingly been paid to the Custodian of Enemy Property up to the 15th September, 1947. On that day the state of war with Italy came to an end, and Section 8 ceased to apply to the clearing receipts.
The U.K. debtors, to whom the clearing orders still apply, are thus bound to pay their debts to the Clearing Office. There remains a number of such debts which, for various reasons, mainly connected with the stoppage of Anglo-Italian trade during the war and the effect on the traders of wartime conditions, are still outstanding—most of them are being paid by instalments. The Clearing Office is unable to apply the receipts so obtained in accordance with the voided clearing agreements, and as it cannot now pay them to the custodian a means had to be found of disposing of them.
The powers given by the Act restrict the use of clearing funds to distribution to creditors; (a) under specific Treasury instructions, or (b) by agreement with the foreign Government concerned. The first of these two methods has never been used in U.K. clearings, and the amount still to be received from debtors of Italy on clearing account is too small for it to be


effectively applied in this way now. The second method open to use, namely, by agreement with the foreign Government concerned, has therefore been taken, and the Italian Government was approached with the suggestion, to which it has agreed, that the receipts of the Clearing Office after 15th September, 1947, shall be remitted to the Italian creditors through the ordinary channels for current payments.
The order now before the House is required to give effect to the agreement made with the Italian Government, that is, to enable the Clearing Office to pay its receipts to current Italian account for transfer to the Italian creditors. The necessity of retaining the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act on the Statute Book is being considered, and if its retention is found to be unnecessary the House will be asked in due course to repeal it, but for as long as it remains operative in the case of Italy, and there are debts outstanding to them to which it has been made to apply, it is necessary for the Clearing Office to have the means to dispose of the money it collects. The debts due from Italy to the United Kingdom which, but for the war, would have been paid through the clearing, would have been dealt with as claims against Italy by persons in the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Peace Treaty, in conjunction with all other claims against Italy.
The order has, under Section 4 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, to be laid before Parliament, and must be approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Commons within 28 days, so that it may continue to be effective.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved
That the Clearing Office (Italy) Amendment Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 2091), dated 14th September, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 15th September in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — GENEVA TRADE AGREEMENTS (ORDERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Silk Duties (No. 1) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 1814), dated 31st July 1948, a copy of which was delivered to the Votes and Proceedings Office on 3rd August, 1948, in a former Session of Parliament, be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I take it, Sir, that it will be in Order to deal with this order and the following orders on the Order Paper together. There are also some orders which are not subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, against which we put down a Prayer last Session, and I understood that it would be possible for us to refer to these as well as to those which are subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure.

Mr. Speaker: These matters must all come before us as one, so to speak, and I think it would be better to discuss them together.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The orders are the one which has just been moved, No. 1814, and the other two on the Order Paper are Nos. 1813 and 1816. Orders which are not subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure are Nos. 1811, 1812 and 1815. All the Orders result from the Geneva agreements. Many of them involve the complete elimination of Imperial Preference on the various commodities listed in the schedules to these orders. I realise that a general discussion on Imperial Preference would be out of Order. We have just had an Imperial Conference. Immense problems and opportunities face the British Empire today. There are the questions of defence, development, the priority of capital and of labour, and trade. Millions of people in the world are looking to the British Empire to give a lead which will help the world out of its difficulties. They are looking for inspiration and guidance, but what many of us find has emerged from the Conference have been the apologies for the use of the word "British" in describing Imperial citizenship—and now those orders.
They are the first Parliamentary orders to be laid before the House after the Imperial Conference. We have never claimed, and should not dream of doing so, that duties on imported foreign


articles should never be changed. Indeed, it has been one of the strongest arguments in favour of the tariff system that they gave us a bargaining weapon with which to negotiate desirable agreements with other countries. What is true of tariffs in general is true also of preferences, and we do not support the view that preferential rates between different parts of the Empire must never be varied. But if they are to be reduced, as they are reduced under these orders, we claim that we and our fellow citizens of the Empire ought to be the judges of whether the duties should be maintained or increased.
By the agreements made at Geneva and, later, at Havana, we are precluded from maintaining some preferences, from increasing any of them and from starting any new ones at all. While the Government are rightly accepting Marshall Aid to help to bring about the greater union of Western Europe, we are doing our best by these orders to break up the great trading and Imperial unit of the British Empire, which is the best illustration in the world of nations working together for common and decent purposes.
There is one other matter of general importance, which is relevant to these orders. The present Geneva agreements are in force under a protocol which provides for our withdrawal from them after 60 days' notice. Eventually, presumably, the Government will agree to Article 31, under which we shall not be able to withdraw from these agreements before June, 1951, and, thereafter, after only six months' notice. The Government have promised not to implement the Havana Charter without presenting it to Parliament, so that there can be a full discussion upon it, but they have made no such promise about the Geneva agreements. It is therefore possible for the Government, step by step, to bring the terms of the Havana Charter into line with the Geneva agreements, and so avoid Parliamentary approval being required at all.
Since these orders were issued we have had a Command Paper, No. 7544, which is an account of the most recent session of the Conference on Trade and Employment at Geneva, the session that came to an end in September last. In this Paper there is a blank acceptance of Chapters 1 to 6 and Chapter 9 of the

Havana Charter. So we are bound to this Charter, or to those chapters of it, until June, 1951, without the Charter coming before this House for discussion. This is despite the Government's assurance that the Charter would not be implemented without Parliamentary approval. Merely by the process of bringing the Havana Charter and the Geneva agreements into line, we find that the country has been committed to those chapters until June, 1951, without Parliamentary discussion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who replies for the Government will deal with that point.
As to details, Order No. 1814 deals with silk duties. Hitherto, we have had a preference of one-sixth on all Empire silk goods coming into the United Kingdom. Now, over a wide range, these duties are being reduced and in certain cases are being wholly eliminated—this at the time when we are trying to encourage the growth of industry in the Dominions so that we can spread the potential assets of the British Empire more sensibly throughout the whole Imperial field. Order No. 1812 reduces the duty on motor cycles coming into Great Britain, and Order No. 1813 removes altogether Imperial Preference on motor cycles coming here, and also abolishes the preference given hitherto to Canada, Australia and other Dominions on agricultural machinery. We know the value of these industries, particularly agricultural machinery, in Canada and Australia, and the need to encourage them where they exist and start them where they do not exist. This is an absurd moment in our history, at a time when we need to keep closer together, to do away with the one—third preference which would help these industries.
Order No. 1816 raises an important point. By it we see the completion of the replacement of the system of ad valorem duties by specific duties. We on this side are not wedded to any particular theory about the best way to apply these duties, whether on value or by a form of specific duty. If the general levels of duties rise, then obviously it is to the advantage of the British Empire as a trading unit that we should have ad valorem duties, and if the duties fall a specific duty is the best protection for the Empire producer. We have a case


in regard to tobacco, where there is a specific duty. Here the general tariff on imported tobacco has risen so sharply that the preference, despite the best intentions, has fallen from 25 per cent. to under 3 per cent.
So we are not wedded to any particular form, but it is important to realise that Order No. 1816 replaces all ad valorem duties by specific duties. The commodities affected are Empire fruits. In different parts of the Empire, including the Murray River and the Swan River district in Australia, quite flourishing townships have been built up by producing fruits for the British market. This order should sound to those townships a sombre note of warning of what is likely to happen if no successful protest is raised against orders of this kind.
All these orders are based on the Government's acceptance of the view of non-discrimination, which is quite at variance with the whole principle of Marshall Aid, where it is urged that nations with kindred interests should get together in closer association. Are we then as a country wedded to the view that the British Empire and Western Europe have got to restrict their trade to levels equal to the trade we can afford to do with the United States? If that is so, no recovery can be found either for the United Kingdom or for Western Europe.
This view is challenged by many people in the Empire, and it may well be that in the course of the next year or 18 months many new voices will be raised in protest against this view. For ourselves as a party we made our position perfectly plain at the great annual conference of the Conservative Party which took place during the Summer Recess. We pledged ourselves to do our utmost to secure a denunciation of the Geneva Trade Treaty and the non-ratification of the Havana Charter in so far as they limit or contemplate the limitation of the preferential system.
Because these orders do no more than carry out the agreement that the Government entered into, which agreement we think was wrong, we do not propose to divide the House against them tonight. We issue, however, the clear warning that these orders, in our view, spring from an act which was falsely conceived at the

start. They cannot be a permanent part of our Imperial machinery and they will be altered as soon as the opportunity arises.

4.35 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): I was very glad to hear from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) that it was not the intention of the Opposition to divide the House upon this matter. Indeed, if the Opposition had persisted in it I should have had the feeling that that course was not in the best interests of the House as a whole. He knows as well as I know that these items have been discussed very fully by the House, and I was a little surprised to hear him say that the Geneva Agreement on Trade and Tariffs had not been endorsed by the House as such. It was fully debated, as I know full well because it was one of the first items with which I had to deal from this Box. It was a matter which caused me a great deal of anxiety and worry as it was not familiar to me at the time. Everybody will be aware that there was a very full discussion before a decision was come to by this House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot have made myself clear, because what I was saying was that the Havana Charter has not been discussed by the House. The Government undertook that it should be, but with the process of bringing it into line with the Geneva Agreements, which have been discussed, it looks as if we have rather missed the opportunity of discussing that Charter.

Mr. Bottomley: That is a point on which I must satisfy the hon. Gentleman and show him that the orders coming into operation now will not have the effect which he forecasts. Let me deal here with the orders which he has mentioned. In the first case, there is the question of the decision to eliminate Imperial Preference on motor cycles and motor tricycles and agricultural tractors. The track-laying types of tractor do not come into the matter. Before, under the Imperial Preference system there was a duty charged on these goods from Commonwealth countries at a preferential rate of two-thirds of the full duty paid by foreign countries. In order that we could play our part in building up multilateral trade, there were full consultations with the Dominions concerned, and it was with


their approval that we agreed in this particular case to do away with the existing preference. We were not able to do away with it at the time of the Geneva Agreement, because our position was such that we had to get further authority, which we secured ultimately in the Finance Act of this year. Because of this we reserved the right at Geneva to delay putting the concession into force until a later date. In view of the fact that the House considered this matter and came to a decision on it, we were hoping that these orders would go through without any difficulty at all.
From now on motor cycles and tricycles whether they come from Commonwealth or foreign countries will be chargeable at 22½ per cent. ad valorem. The House is entitled to know what is involved. Let me just give a few particulars. In the case of motor cycles and motor tricycles, in the 1935 to 1939 period only 13 cycles were imported into this country while the number of agricultural tractors was 63.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: From all sources or from Dominion sources?

Mr. Bottomley: Dominion sources. The reduced duties on these articles is not of such a nature as to cause any great anxiety. It was Canada, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford referred, that readily agreed that these concessions could be made. Therefore, this was one of our contributions to help to get some agreement on these matters at Geneva.
The other item which has been mentioned is the Silk Duties Order. In connection with the silk duties we have changed the specific rates for stockings so that the duty will be chargeable on a dozen pairs of stockings rather than on weight as before. Under the agreement reached at Geneva instead of the old rate of 10s. per lb. there will be a new rate of 12s. per dozen pairs, the equivalent of about 18s. per lb. The preference on Commonwealth silk and artificial silk goods was previously fixed by statute. Therefore we had to reserve the right at Geneva to delay putting the concession into force until September because we needed to get the necessary legislation for the Treasury

to alter these rates. The Treasury can now fix these rates under the Finance Act, 1948.
There is another item, mentioned in the Ottawa Duties (Geneva Agreement) Order, namely, rice in the husk. The previous duty on rice in the husk was two-thirds of a penny per lb., but the new rate will make it the equivalent of 6s. per cwt. Two-thirds of a penny per lb. is 6s. 2d. and two-thirds of a penny per cwt., and we think that it is much better for commerce, to have the round figure of 6s. rather than 6s. 2d. and two—thirds of a penny. That is the only change that has been necessitated in this case. It is a facilitating item rather than an alteration of substance.
The Finance Act, 1939, did reduce the duty upon another item that comes within these orders, and that is patent leather. That Act reduced the duty from 15 per cent. ad valorem to a rate of 7½ per cent. for the duration of the 1938 agreement with the United States. Then the agreement was suspended as a result of the Geneva talks, but we said that we would agree that the old 7½ per cent. rate would apply. The present order really confirms the old agreement. Again, I would say that permission was given by the House for the Treasury to do this, in the Finance Act of this year. I think that we on this side of the House are just as anxious as are hon. Members opposite to look after the interests of the United Kingdom. We feel that in proposing these orders we are playing our part towards the development of multilateral trade and the removal of unnecessary restrictions. In those circumstances we are pleased to know, as has been indicated, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept these orders.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I look upon these orders as a move in the right direction, but I do not think they matter very much. I do not think that the Empire will be much assisted by an import of 13 tricycles and 69 tractors, or ruined by the exclusion of them. I think this is an indication, although rather apologetic, that the Government are moving in the direction of multilateral trade. The sooner they move in that direction the better it will be for the prosperity of this country. The Empire


is not going to be built up on small preferences on tractors and tricycles imported at this tiny rate. Indeed, the Government could have made a preference by putting on a duty slightly lower than 221 per cent. It would not have helped or hindered anybody and it would have made no difference. The orders are quite trivial, but as far as they go, I hope that they are an indication that the Government intend to go further in this direction, and I welcome the orders for that reason.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the alterations embodied in these orders are not in themselves substantial. He might even have said that whatever loss they involve us in, they also bring about some sort of corresponding gain. That is a proposition that some of us might have found it fairly easy to support. We are not concerned about these individual orders, but about the principle which lies behind them. That principle is that this country can accept an extension of multilateral trade. We find it objectionable that the right hon. Gentleman brings forward orders and makes agreements at Geneva when the Government are in fact denying the very arrangements that they have brought about.
The Government are, with these orders, paying lip service to the conception of an extension of multilateral trade, but the Board of Trade have been active during the past 12 months in fixing up the greatest number of bilateral trading agreements that this country has ever known. That is the truth of the present position. All that we on this side of the House want to say is that we shall take no part in paying lip service to a principle which we know we cannot possibly implement. If we are prepared to take the stand that this country is in precisely the same position as any other country on the Continent of Europe, and that we have no special trading difficulties, our problem of recovery being comparable with that of France, Belgium or Holland, we can make these agreements without any twinge of conscience.
On the other hand, if we know that this country is, largely because of circumstances outside our own control, in a position where much more will be needed to put us solvent in 10 years' time than is

the case in France, Belgium or Holland, we shall have some doubt about accepting these Motions or subscribing to a principle from which we know we shall be driven by the inexorable trends of trade development in the next five or 10 years.
It is impossible for us in this country, by the ordinary development of trade, to put ourselves in five years' time into a position where we shall be able to face everybody in the world. We have lost a large volume of our invisible exports and no one imagines that we shall be able to make good our enormous deficit of invisible exports unless we take special steps to protect our own position. If we place ourselves at the mercy of every country in the world and take no special steps to protect ourselves and our own interests, we shall be doing no service to the country.
All that I object to is that the hon. Gentleman stands at that Box and pays lip service to a principle which he knows we shall be prevented from implementing in the long run by the very conditions of world trade. I make that protest against the hon. Gentleman's attitude. It would have been much more honest of His Majesty's present Administration to say to the nations at Havana: "Our problems are special problems. We want to help the world in trade matters. We have shown in many ways our anxiety to play our part in a world organisation so as to put the world in a better position than it is in today, but we have special responsibilities and difficulties because of our precarious position economically. We cannot subscribe to the principles of multilateral trade which will deny our taking steps to safeguard our own interests. We say, finally, that if we, as a great trading nation, fail to maintain our position, we shall do much more harm to world trade as a whole than by any reluctance to subscribe to principles which we know are not practical in the long run."

4.48 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I have been astonished at the claims that have been made from the opposite Benches. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have accused the Government of paying lip service to a principle. I wish that the other side had paid any sort of service to any sort of principle. It does not seem to be clear from their speeches what the


principle is, particularly in view of the applause that has come from some hon. Gentlemen opposite while the speeches have been going on.
I agree with the principle that we ought to be working for the establishment of multilateral trade, but I would remind hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the Front Bench opposite that the intention of instrument after instrument to which our signature has been given—international instruments—has been, in every direction possible, to get rid of restrictions in order that such trade might be made possible. I shall not weary the House by attempting to go over the list of agreements at which we have arrived with America and with other nations upon this point. At any rate, the Government have been proceeding carefully in a difficult world to make good that principle. They have accepted at Geneva, with the willing agreement of members of the Dominions and the member-States of the Commonwealth, certain radical alterations about which there ought to be no complaint from the other side at all, because of what the right hon. Gentleman described as decisions made at the important Conservative conference at Llandudno—I am glad to think that anybody in this House believes that it was important; I am glad to think there is anything left out of the wreckage that hon. Members can still talk about. Even when they come here tonight to talk about the necessity of standing by the principles of preference, they are uncertain whether, after the important lead given to them at Llandudno, they should divide the House or not.
I submit, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that this principle has been agreed to. It has been agreed to by the House, it has been agreed to at Geneva. Everybody should welcome the general effort to get rid of restrictions, where we can make it; even such restrictions as have offered a temporary and slight advantage to the Dominions, especially when the Dominions agree, because the process now at work of bringing us back to the development of multilateral trade in the world is one that this House should steadily set its face towards. I am glad, therefore, that the Government persist in the orders now before the House.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I rise to support the orders before us today and I do so for the good reasons adumbrated by the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) and the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). It is surely a counsel of perfection that multilateral trade is a practical policy today, and we recognise the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. In a world where economies are topsy-turvy there has to be a great deal of bilateral trading, there has to be any amount of individual negotiation, but surely the aim of this great trading nation, and of all men of goodwill, is to secure the freest possible exchange of the commodities in the world? As my hon. Friend has rightly said, what is the use of our complaining about the tariffs which are keeping out so many of our own excellent products from the Western Hemisphere if we are not prepared to examine what have been conceded today to be very minor preferences? In fact I was amazed when the Minister told us the details of the trade that had been transacted in terms of agricultural machinery and, what is more, told us that this was no high-handed act of our own but one which had been done as a result of free consultation with the Dominions and the countries which constitute this Empire.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that hon. Members on these Benches are prepared to sell out the British Empire, as we are so often charged with doing, and that we have no regard to, for instance, the potentialities of Africa and to some of our friends in Asia who are still part of the British Commonwealth of Nations; if they think that we have no regard to the value which is to be derived from co-operative trading and development, they are mistaken indeed. We and the House generally have backed up before the principle of working together with these great countries and have given our capital to develop them. We see no conflict between the development of the Empire and the re-establishment of trade in Europe, putting nations in Europe on their feet. That has been generally agreed. Therefore today, if there are some out-moded preferences or tariffs which we can examine, if there is some adjustment to


be made, if there is some bargain to be struck with the view that ultimately there shall be, if not a complete abolition of these preferences and tariffs between the great trading countries of the world, at least there shall be a minimum of them—it is a goal towards which we should be striving constantly. And that is all the Government have in mind today. There is no Janus-faced attitude in this matter. The Government did not go with one point of view to Havana and take another when they saw a chance of making a deal in Europe in terms of bilateral trade. The Government deal with the situation as they find it, and they do their best in the light of their experience and knowledge.
From that point of view I think we should support the reasonable proposal before the House today, and not regard it as being the prelude to the breaking up of the Empire.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Silk Duties (No. 1) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 1814), dated 31st July, 1948, a copy of which was delivered to the Votes and Proceedings Office on 3rd August, 1948, in a former Session of Parliament, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Import Duties (Imperial Preference) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 1813), dated 31st July, 1948, a copy of which was delivered to the Votes and Proceedings Office on 3rd August, 1948, in a former Session of Parliament, be approved."—[Mr. Bottomley.]

Resolved:
That the Ottawa Duties (Geneva Agreement) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 1816), dated 31st July, 1948, a copy of which was delivered to the Votes and Proceedings Office on 3rd August, 1948, in a former Session of Parliament, be approved."—[Mr. Bottomley.]

Orders of the Day — SAVINGS BANK [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to Trustee Savings Banks and to extend the powers of the Postmaster-General under Section two of the Savings Banks Act, 1904, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase resulting from any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the amounts falling to be paid from the Consolidated Fund by virtue of Section seventy-two of the Finance Act, 1947.

Resolution agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

Orders of the Day — REMOVED RAILINGS (COMPENSATION)

4.56 p.m.

Lord John Hope: The primary aspect of this case of compensation for railings removed during the war, began on 19th July when I asked the Minister of Works a Question relating to the removal of railings from the garden of Mr. W. R. Forrest, of 2, Corstorphine Hill Avenue, Edinburgh. Mr. Forrest is a constituent of mine. The facts of the matter are that when Mr. Forrest came back from the war he found that 130 feet of iron railings had been removed from around his garden. The fact that it was a garden is important to the case which I want to put to the Minister, if he would be good enough to listen—if, indeed, he is there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not know if he is.

Mr. Peter Roberts: He is there.

Lord John Hope: Nobody was listening and I did not know who would be replying. The compensation offered to Mr. Forrest was 2s. 6d. He had to spend £26 on wire netting to replace the damage done, and I asked the Minister of Works whether he was able to increase this offer of 2s. 6d. in view of the cost to which Mr. Forrest had been put. The Minister replied that he was unable to do so, as he said, quite accurately, that compensation had been paid in accordance with paragraph 4 of Defence Regulation 50B.
The case I have to make to the Minister is really very short and, I hope and believe, very clear. I want to refer the Minister to an answer given by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), when he was the appropriate Minister, On 17th December, 1943, he was asked by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), whether he would circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT,
the examples issued in January, 1942, for the guidance of local authorities in deciding what railings, etc., should not be scheduled for removal for scrap; and what action his Department has taken in those cases where railings have been removed and are subsequently shown to have been within any of these categories?


I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT. Then follows the reply:
MR. HICKS: I append the examples for which the hon. Member asks.
The list which follows, which I shall not read at length, includes the following relevant item:
Railings and gates necessary to protect growing crops* actually bordering on a highway in Urban Areas.
The asterisk against this paragraph is explained by the following footnote:
*These words were intended to include vegetable crops."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1824/5.]
My case is that, in view of this list of exceptions to the Schedule, these railings should riot, in fact, have been removed at the time, because Mr. Forrest, quite obviously, is unable to grow vegetables in his garden with any likelihood of their remaining there when grown, unless they are fenced round. In order to do that, he of course, as he had to do, bought this wire netting in substitution for the railings which he had lost and put it round his garden. The garden is adjacent to a public highway and in the normal way he would, of course, be able to grow vegetables in it.
That is the case on which I rest my appeal to the Minister. I do not want to waste his time or that of the House in harking back to the intentions or justice of the original order. Therefore, having made my case, I hope, clearly and shortly, I await with absolute confidence an entirely satisfactory reply from the Minister.

5.3 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): I think it perhaps wise, having on this Adjournment the opportunity of giving an explanation, to refer not merely to the specific case just mentioned but, since a considerable number of inquiries have been made about this matter, to explain for the benefit of hon. Members and the public generally the position regarding compensation for railings which were removed.
The arrangement for compensation for this ferrous scrap was started in 1940 by the then Minister of Supply, and my Department was given the task of requisitioning iron railings and gates. Voluntary schemes to obtain this scrap were not successful and it was necessary

to requisition the railings and gates which were required. In order to do so, use was made of Defence Regulation 50, which dealt with the powers to do work on land, to authorise the actual severing of the fittings from their setting. Defence Regulation 53 was then introduced—it dealt with the requisitioning of property other than land—in order to give power to take the severed fittings as chattels.
It was first thought that claims for compensation, if such were made for the chattels so removed could be settled under the appropriate Section of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, Section 6 of which laid it down that the compensation payable upon requisition was the price that might reasonably have been expected to be obtained for the goods at the time of their requisition, which in this case was after their severance, and not before. In other words, compensation was to be paid for the railings, not as railings in situ, but as scrap metal, because they had already been removed.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Monstrous!

Mr. Key: It may be monstrous but that was the position under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939.

Mr. Brown: It was a monstrous Act.

Mr. Key: I am only responsible for operating the law. Loss of value of the land affected, due to loss of pleasure or amenity, was no basis of compensation; such grounds were ruled out by Section 3 of the Act, but compensation was paid for the expense involved in making good the damage caused to low walls, brick pillars and the like by the actual act a severance.
Shortly afterwards, before compensation arrangements had got really into their stride, it was thought wise to make the appropriate legislation somewhat plainer whilst still adhering to the basis of compensation originally contemplated. This was done by a new regulation—Regulation 50B—which dealt specifically with special provisions as to the severance of fixtures. This regulation, which was made by Order in Council on 30th April, 1942, merely stated, in clear terms, the points which I have already made. In addition, however, paragraph 8 made it quite plain that no compensation could


be paid for any expenditure involved in the provision of a substitute for the fixtures. It might, perhaps, be helpful if I refer to the actual words of paragraph 8, which says,
… there shall be paid … compensation … in respect of any expenditure reasonably incurred by him in making good (otherwise than by the provision of a substitue for the fixtures) any damage caused to the land in connection with the severance …
Those were the conditions under which we worked.
I think it well to refer now to the actual working out of the sums offered as compensation in compliance with these regulations. The railings, if they lost their identity on severance, attracted compensation at the then scrap rate of 25s. a ton. Readily detachable fittings, such as gates, attracted compensation equal to their secondhand value at the time of requisition. In the case of gates to an ordinary house frontage the amount would be anything from £1 to £10 according to size, or whether they were made of cast iron or wrought iron. Such was the way in which we operated. Disputed claims were referred to and decided by the General Claims Tribunal, which was set up in accordance with Section 8 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and that Tribunal has consistently decided in favour of the basis of compensation which I have explained. They did so again as recently as a week or two ago.
Another point I wish to make plain is that Section 11 of the Compensation (Defence) Act lays down that there can be no legal claim for compensation if notice of it had not been given to the appropriate authority within six months of the actual requisition. There is, however, power to extend that period for a reasonable time if ignorance of the fact of requisition can be proved. The Department ceased to take railings in September, 1944, and the reasonable period of extension can be considered to have started in March, 1945.
When, therefore, in April of this year, I decided that the extension should definitely and finally end on 1st June, 1948—an extension of more than three years—I suggest that it cannot be held that my decision was unreasonable. In the six weeks which elapsed between 14th April and 1st June, between my announcement and the end of the period for

claims, claims in respect of no fewer than 500,000 properties were received. I think the figures are a complete answer to the suggestion that there was lack of publicity in regard to the final date. It is quite definite that there can be no further extension of that period. A final date there must be, and 1st June is that date. I wish to make it plain that it will take anything up to three years to deal with claims we have in hand and to pay the compensation involved. I therefore ask all claimants to be patient. They have delayed making their claims for three years, and it will probably take us three years to settle them.
In letters to the Ministry there is often a question in regard to revision of the compensation provisions of Defence Regulation 50s. My predecessor made it perfectly clear in an oral answer in this House on 13th November, 1945, that no revision could possibly be undertaken. The problem of dealing with the half million claims we have in hand is difficult enough, but it would be absolutely unthinkable to reopen all settled claims which would be the natural and unavoidable outcome of any revision of the basis of compensation. In addition, if it were done for claims already received, we should also have to give an opportunity to those who, though they did not apply for the scrap value of their requisitioned railings, might, under the new conditions, wish to claim compensation if the basis were replacement instead of scrap value. Again, in the interests of sane administration, I must be definite and say that no revision can be made of the basis of compensation.
Another matter is germane to the question raised by the noble Lord. Under Section 52 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, I have power to assist in the re-enclosure of land where it is clear, in the public interest, that this should be done. I have used this power and will continue to use it, but I cannot accept as being in the public interest the replacement of fencing to private houses.

Lord John Hope: I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman strictly to do that. I am asking him to bear in mind that according to the exceptions to the Schedule, as listed in 1942, this should have been an exception and ought never to have ben requisitioned. Because of


its vegetable-growing capacity, it is not an ordinary ornamental garden, or private property.

Mr. Key: It is private property; it is a garden to a private house. The fact that it happens to have a length of 130 feet instead of 40 feet makes no difference. I am given this power and have to decide as to whether particular cases can be deemed to be in the public interest. We have investigated every individual case and considered it on its merits. We have made no hard and fast rules, but we make grants where we think it is in the public interest, and where the grant is made it is for the simplest type of fencing which will suit the purpose, but it must be clear that it is in the public interest to do so. That is the deciding factor; private interest is not considered, but is definitely ruled out under the regulations.

Lord John Hope: I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is most important. Surely it is in the public interest for the Government to allow protection for land on a public highway when it is capable of having vegetables grown upon it in the interests of food production. That has always happened up to now, why is it not so in this case?

Mr. Key: This case has been investigated and it has been held that it does not come within the general class of cases in which we have allowed compensation either in direct form by the actual supply of material, or indirectly by the payment of grants. In each case I am bound to take the line of deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to pay compensation. That is the deciding factor. The mere fact that a piece of land can be used for the purpose of growing vegetables would bring into operation an additional compensation for a great majority of the claims which have been made. It is quite definitely laid down in the regulations that compensation is not warranted in this case, and I could not possibly agree that compensation should be paid.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has made reference to many Acts of Parliament and to a great many regulations, and so forth. We are simple folk, and we want to know what damage

was done to the man's property, what is the estimated value of it and what does the Minister offer to pay? If there is a gap between the two, all the Acts of Parliament in the world will not make the Minister right.

Mr. Key: I have tried to make fairly plain that what was done under the regulations was, first of all, to take the power to remove railings and to make good any damage that was thereby done to low walls, pillars and objects, of that sort. Power was also taken under the regulations to regard the railings, when they were removed, as chattels, and to pay for them compensation on their value as chattels at the time of their removal, not at the time when they were in situ as railings.

Mr. W. J. Brown: That is just plain robbery.

Mr. Key: It is the way in which the job was done at the time the railings were taken. Those were the regulations under which the scheme was operated. Compensation has been paid at that rate to people who legitimately claimed their compensation during the six months period. It was definitely laid down that there was to be no compensation whatever for the cost of replacing in any way the fixtures that had been removed.

Mr. W. J. Brown: That is just plain robbery.

Mr. Key: This House agreed to those regulations. This House passed the Acts under which the procedure has operated. I, as Minister of Works, have had to carry out, during my period of office, the same principles that were followed from 1941 onwards, when the work was being done.

Lord John Hope: Would the Minister be good enough to tell me to what section of what order or Act he refers which prevents him from considering my constituent's area of land, on which he is now prevented from growing vegetables, in the same way as any piece of ground on which vegetables might be grown, which was listed as an exception by the Government in 1942?

Mr. Key: It was not a Schedule but merely a list of cases. It did not deal with the question of compensation but was sent out to local authorities to show the kind


Of cases in which the railings should not be removed. It does not affect the rules and regulations as regards compensation.

Lord John Hope: Surely what the Minister has said has nothing to do with the case? Surely this list of exceptions shows, if it shows anything, that the railings should never have been removed from this particular ground? I rested my case on that charge and that assumption. Will the Minister say what he proposes to do about looking into my charge that these railings were unfairly taken away, and that this case should have been an exception? If it is proved to be such, what will the Government do?

Mr. Key: As I have said, I looked into the case before I gave my reply on 19th July. The case was investigated and the amount of compensation which was offered to Mr. Forrest was assessed strictly in accordance with the regulations which I have read out.

Lord John Hope: But that is not my point.

Mr. Key: But it is my point. We have already said that we will pay the sum authorised, and that the compensation has been assessed on the basis of the regulations. What I am being asked is to do something more, that is, not to assess this case on the basis of the regulations, but to make an extra payment of compensation for the cost of the replacement of the railings. As I have said, I am not prepared to do that.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I understand the Minister to say that once a decision was taken that these particular railings had to be treated as chattels, there was no option open to him but to pay for the railings at their scrap value, or, in the case of a gate, at its second-hand value?

Mr. Key: That is correct.

Mr. Brown: I ask the Minister under what provision of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, or any Act of Parliament passed by this House since then, he was obliged to treat these railings as chattels? If he was, then the latter part of his argument was relevant, but if he cannot produce an Act of Parliament or an order, all that he said was irrelevant because it was within his choice whether he treated the railings as chattels or not.

Mr. Key: Regulation 50B (4) says:
'… compensation … shall be a sum equal to the price which might reasonably have been expected to be obtained upon a sale of the fixtures effected immediately before the severance to a purchaser intending to sever them, no account being taken of any appreciation due to the emergency in the value of the chattels resulting from the severance.

Mr. W. J. Brown: That does not answer my question——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Order. Mr. Emrys Hughes.

Orders of the Day — RUSSIA AND U.S.A. (RELATIONS)

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not want to enter into detailed controversy about the question of the Ministry of Works and the railings in the constituency of the noble Lord, except to ask the Minister if he will look into this question again, just in case it falls within the long category of grievances affecting Scotland of which complaint is made.
My purpose is to raise a larger question, which involves the foreign policy of this country. I have done my best to get into communication with the Foreign Office in order that a representative might be present during the Debate, but I have no complaint that no representative is here because, owing to the course of the Business of the House, this matter has to be raised somewhat hurriedly. I hope, however, that when my remarks are published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, they will
receive some attention and thought on the part of the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: On a point of Order. Shall we be able to return to the subject of railings, or are we to assume that it is now disposed of? I ask that because some of us have an interest in this matter and would like a more satisfactory ending to the Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. The position is that hon. Members may raise any subject on the Adjournment so long as legislation is not required. The hon. Member can return later to the subject he mentions, if he catches my eye.

Lord John Hope: Further to that point of Order. In view of the fact that we—have turned to another subject, is it in


Order for me to give notice that I shall probably have to raise this matter again on the Adjournment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the noble Lord has just done that.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Further to that point of Order. May I ask why I was not allowed to have a reply to my last question from the Minister? I had got him where I wanted him, when the subject of the Debate was changed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had a feeling that the hon. Member might wish to speak later. If he had already exhausted his right to speak, he might have been rather sorry for himself.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I repeat that I wish to raise a rather larger subject concerning our foreign policy in view of the change that has come over the world situation as the result of the Presidential election in the United States of America. I wish to ask the Government and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in particular, if, in view of what has happened in the United States, and in the light of the repercussions it may have on our foreign policy, in co-operation with the United States, it is not time for the Government to give further consideration to the whole question of how we can co-operate with the United States of America in order to make another approach to the Government of the U.S.S.R.
I happened to be fortunate enough to be in the United States during the last three weeks of the Presidential election campaign. Suddenly, out of the blue, came the issue of the decision of President Truman to send Judge Vincent to open out new negotiations, to conduct a peace mission to Mr. Stalin. This issue suddenly became of very great interest, and a dominant issue in the whole of the Press in New York, which, with, I believe, the exception of one article in the "New York Star," was very critical of President Truman. The opposition to President Truman, the Republican Press, went into ecstasies, because this was regarded as the final blow to the hope that President Truman would be returned to the White House. There were all kinds of headlines—"Truman's Blunder," "Truman's Folly"—and Governor Dewey immediately made a public pronouncement

that he was entirely against the move that President Truman had made, and that it did not represent his idea of what should be the foreign policy of America.
I even read in a despatch from one diplomatic correspondent, I believe it was in either the "New York Times" or the "New York Herald Tribune," that the British Government were seriously disturbed, because there was a possibility of some kind of understanding above the heads of the British Government between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the U.S.S.R. I make no comment upon that. I do not know whether it is true or not. But it seemed that our attitude in that controversy should have been that we in this country would welcome every move between America and the U.S.S.R. likely to bring about what we all want, a permanent peace, and to drive away the rumour of war from the minds of men.
I believe that I was the only one in the British Press that backed President Truman and welcomed his decision to send this illustrious American personality to negotiate with Mr. Stalin. I believe that at the present time the whole international situation is so serious that diplomatic technicalities, niceties, precedents and procedure should take a second place if we can possibly get some kind of understanding which will result in an agreement between America and Russia. Because this is the question that dominates the whole issue of international politics, and it is going to dominate the whole economic picture of this country. I am not arguing for one moment that the mission will be a success. But even if there was a slight possibility of its success, if it could convey to Mr. Stalin the idea that there was in America a genuine desire to solve this problem, then, even if there was only a remote possibility of it being successful, I assert that it should have the full support of His Majesty's Government in this country.
I see in the Press today a statement that there is a possibility of President Truman once more making a similar offer, perhaps not exactly in the same way, perhaps not even with the same personalities, perhaps in a different way. But there is the possibility of President Truman, fortified by that magnificent vote of confidence from the American people, once again striking a new and welcome note in international policy. I


think, therefore, that from this House there should go out to the world some kind of statement that we wish every possible attempt made to conduct new negotiations. Because if negotiations are not conducted, we are going down the slippery slope towards rearmament and another war. I indicated in the Debate last week that this country cannot possibly go in for a big rearmament programme and also carry out the big programme of social reconstruction looked for by the people of this country.
I have heard of what I think was a very effective piece of what might be called propaganda—using the word in its best sense—which President Truman issued in his election campaign. It was a leaflet showing a picture of President Truman in military uniform in World War No. 1. It said: "Nobody wants war, Harry S. Truman knows why." I believe that in initiating this leaflet, which I understand went into the homes of every voter in this election, President Truman struck a note to which there was a very emphatic response from the ordinary people of America. More than once in this campaign the President stressed the need for doing everything possible to avoid another war. I believe that the ordinary American saw that there was some common sense, some line, some guidance in the lead that the President gave, and that even though the pundits of the Press thought it was an unpopular move, not a good electioneering move, it did strike a note in the hearts of the American people to which there should be a response in this country.
I was alarmed when I was in America to see so many people taking it for granted that this country was to be considered as just a base for operations by American Forces in a possible war against Russia. Over and over again, in the Press and on the public platforms, I heard the same idea expressed, and it is now taken for granted. It is the thesis of innumerable writings by military experts, that Great Britain must be considered, in the event of another war, as an arsenal or a base for operations by the United States Air Force.
I want this country to take an entirely different line. I do not want it to be considered merely as a sort of aircraft

carrier for American bombers in the next war. I need hardly stress, for it has been stressed in innumerable Debates, that this country has more to lose by being a potential arsenal in another war than any other country in the world. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), in the Debate on defence, stressed the point that Russia had certain strategical weaknesses, because Russia had so much of her industrial population concentrated round railway centres. Surely that applies equally to this country. Are we not concentrated round the railway centres? Look at the great populations concentrated round London and the large industrial populations concentrated round Leeds, Manchester, Carlisle and Glasgow.
If we are to safeguard the future of the men, women and children in this country in the event of a possible atomic war, then we should do everything in our power to encourage every move from wherever it comes and whichever responsible statesman makes it. If President Truman, encouraged by his victory at the polls, were to say that we must be prepared to go to Moscow to discuss the whole international situation once again with Mr. Stalin, that suggestion should have the whole-hearted support of His Majesty's Government.
I do not say for one moment that this is an easy way out. I do not argue that there are not innumerable complexities and difficulties. I know that the argument will be that it is impossible to negotiate with the Russians. We must remember that the Russians are a very tough people and that, even if by means of atomic war we defeated the Russian armies in the field, we should have to face the whole question of how to occupy Russia for years after we had won the war. Can we say that the nations who won the last war have so much reason to be satisfied with the occupation of Germany that they can now contemplate the possibility of an army of occupation taking over the vast country of Russia? The answer is "no." It is time that His Majesty's Government realised that the ordinary man in the street is tired of the perpetual wranglings and bickerings at Paris and would welcome a new move in international politics.
I travelled on the train between New York and Hartford, Connecticut, with an airman who had taken part in the lift to


Berlin. He said, "It is so strange to be going over there taking the risks that we are taking in order to take food supplies to the people on whom we were dropping bombs only a few years ago. It is so strange now to walk about the streets of Berlin and to give away candy to the children whose homes we were trying to destroy only a few years ago. It does not make sense."
I believe that the people of the world realise that our foreign policy does not make sense—and that applies to both sides. I do not say that Mr. Vishinsky and the Russians are any less blameless than our diplomats and statesmen. The responsibility lies on both sides. We in this country must be prepared to retrace our steps and to step away from the old foreign policy of unconditional surrender which has resulted in one great yawning chasm of a destroyed Germany and Europe. We must be prepared to adopt a new positive international policy.

Mr. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman assuming throughout his speech that Mr. Vishinsky's policy as propounded at Paris is something completely different, or different in any degree, from what Mr. Stalin's policy would be if he was approached directly?

Mr. Hughes: No, I do not say that. I do not take up the attitude that Mr. Vishinsky has not been entirely wrong in his line of approach towards this Government. The Russian Government, the United States Government and our own Government have all been wrong. We must have an entirely new international approach in the interests of the hundreds of millions of people who will suffer in the event of war. If President Truman comes along with a new line of international policy, believing that he has a mandate from the people of America who hate the word "war," at least His Majesty's Government should give a sympathetic response and be prepared to cooperate in such a policy. The Government should try this as an alternative to a policy which, if pursued, will end in war.

Orders of the Day — REMOVED RAILINGS (COMPENSATION)

5.46 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I am glad to have the opportunity to continue consideration of the subject we were discussing earlier. I apologise to hon. Members if this appears to be a comic performance after the most important speech we have just heard——

Mr. George Porter: On a point of Order. In your absence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, an hon. Member opposite who was responsible for instituting a previous discussion rose and gave notice that he was so dissatisfied that it was his intention to raise the matter again. Would you say how far that is in Order, and whether if the same notice is given at Question Time that debars anyone else from taking part in the discussion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Hon. Members have their opportunities, but I understood that the hon. Member who now has possession of the House desired to speak on the same subject. It seems to me desirable that he should do so whilst the Minister is present.

Mr. Porter: The matter I have raised arose subsequent to the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies) giving notice that he desired to speak.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Any hon. Member who is fortunate in the Ballot and has an opportunity of raising a question on the Adjournment, subject to anything Mr. Speaker has to say, may certainly raise the subject again.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is it not rather unfair to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who prepared an admirable speech on foreign policy and introduced a subject of very great moment, that there should be no one on the Government Front Bench to reply on behalf of the Foreign Office?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member knows from his long experience that that is not a matter for the Chair. I do not know whether or not notice has been given to the Government.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I did everything in my power—I telephoned to the Foreign Office—but I do not complain.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Earlier I raised a point of Order on this matter, because I considered that it would have been better to dispose of the subject about which I wish to speak, before hon. Members discussed other matters. It is not for me to criticise the conduct of the Chair. I wanted to release the Minister. The case which the Minister made out seemed to some of us to be most unsatisfactory. As the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) said, the Minister quoted at length a number of Acts of Parliament and regulations which were so much mumbo jumbo to the man in the street. I concluded that the ordinary citizen has been very roughly treated. In fact, it seems to me he has been most unjustly treated. The Minister made out a case that he was acting in line with legislation. Nobody questions that. He said that it was possible to take away a man's railings and to assess them at a fair value in the ordinary market.
I wish to supplement the plea which has been made tonight by saying that this is not a matter which affects only very wealthy citizens. It is a matter of great interest to many people of limited means. A friend of mine in my constituency, whose name I will not mention for obvious reasons, is a miner who has two small cottages which he managed to procure out of his savings, as he has always been a very careful man. Round each of these cottages he had railings to protect them. When the war came, in common with other people, he lost these railings and the gates to the cottages. It has been estimated since that the value which he should be paid for the loss of those railings and gates is £2 5s. The Minister made it quite clear that he is not concerned with present—day costs, but with what the man would be able to get in the open market. Which of us would think of taking up railings from the front of gardens and houses and offering them as scrap iron in the open market? They had a utility value that is something completely different.
My friend, being a good landlord towards his neighbour, and wanting to make the property respectable, sought to put the cottages in order at the earliest opportunity, and went along to get estimates from contractors. He got two prices, and the lower one was £15. The contractor wanted £15 to put that property in something like the shape in

which it was found when the scrap iron was taken away. The owner, now retired after working hard for the whole of his life and acquiring this property, and wanting to keep it tidy and decent for himself and his friend next door, is not in a position to pay £15 to have the railings restored. To tell him that, in the open market, he could have got £2 5S. for his railings and that that is the total sum which he could get today, is no satisfaction at all for him.
I know there is very little redress in this matter, because, from what the Minister said, it would involve new legislation, and I should be out of Order in discussing it, but this is a matter of wide interest to many people like myself in the country, who feel that they have been unfairly and indeed monstrously treated, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) suggested, in being called upon to bear this burden. It does not seem to be equitable in any sense. I hope that, in the unhappy event of the Government having to deal with a similar position in future, the requisitioning and taking of other people's property will be conducted from a more sensible point of view.

5.54 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I should like to say a word or two about railings, because I feel that the Minister has not, perhaps, had all the sympathy that we ought to give him. This campaign for railings began in 1940, and my complaint about the treatment of railings in the city of Edinburgh, upon which my noble Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Northern (Lord John Hope) was speaking for many hundreds of people, is the inequity of the whole transaction. If I lived in a flat, my railings were not taken. If I had a wall round my garden, I sacrificed nothing in the way of railings. If I had a wooden fence, I suffered nothing, but, if I had cast—iron railings which would cost me at least £50 to replace, I would get compensation at the rate of 2s. 6d. That is monstrously inequitable, and I feel that the Minister himself feels that it is, though he sees no way out of the difficulty.
I challenge him to say that his Department did this business in exactly the way that, doubtless, it could have been done. I have spoken to many of the


people who complain, and have been told that no effort was made to weigh these railings. There is no proof in the records of this business that, in fact, the railings removed weighed xcwts. or ytons. No such arrangement was made. One cannot imagine, during years of war, a travelling apparatus going round from cottage to cottage, knocking down the railings and weighing them, but it is the case that the price given for scrap metal was not based upon any process of weighing which was obvious to the person whose railings were being confiscated.
Not only are the railings being paid for at a compensation rate which is quite inadequate, but this taking of property from a small part of the community throws on them a burden which the whole war effort should have borne. I do not think the present arrangements can be justified as satisfactory, and, whatever the difficulties—and the Government claim that justice must be done if the heavens fall—they should recognise that this is a grievous matter, though it is not their responsibility, but one which was laid upon them by the Coalition Government. They should, nevertheless, review the whole situation. I know the administrative difficulties, but they have abundant staff at their disposal which is not, perhaps, fully employed, and which might be employed to review the whole question and attempt to readjust what has been a very real grievance.
I want to touch on one other matter, and that is the case of the noble Lord's constituent. He was away at the war, and even the notice required by the Department may not have reached him. His case was the same as that of hundreds of others, and I think that, in this matter, where a small section of the community—residents of luxury flats did not give up their railings; Whitehall did not give up its railings—made this sacrifice, went to the war and are now offered compensation for property worth £25 at the rate of 2s. 6d., there is a grievous injustice which can be remedied. The Minister is a man of good heart and good sense, and I hope that, whatever the difficulties, he will review this matter.

Orders of the Day — RUSSIA AND U.S.A. (RELATIONS)

5.57 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: This Debate has been a little difficult. We started with railings. We switched on to Russia. Then we went back from Russia to railings. Now I, in my turn, want to switch back from railings to Russia, and to follow some of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. E. Hughes).
I found his speech extremely moving to listen to, and, in some ways, extremely difficult to reply to. When a man says that he and the common people of all lands want nothing so passionately as peace, and that that applies to the common folk of America as well as to the common folk of this country, it is impossible for any of us to do other than say, "We heartily agree." When he says that he hopes that, if President Truman finds an opportunity of trying to get talks going again with Russia, our own Government will not only put no obstacles in the way, but will do everything they can to facilitate a new approach with a view to a peaceful settlement, there again no hon. Member of this House can do other than say, "We heartily agree." When he talks about the appalling consequences of an atomic war, whether in Russia or in Britain—and I myself have said that, if such a war came, these islands would be the most concentrated target in the whole world—again, we can do nothing but agree.
But, when we have agreed to all that, we still have to face the situation, and, with great respect, I do not believe that that situation is one of equal making as between our Government, on the one side, and the Russians, on the other. After all, it is not our Government, nor is it the American Government, which has occupied millions of square miles of territory since the war ended. It is not our Government which has forced upon scores of millions of people, partly at the point of the bayonet, and partly by a process of subsidised internal erosion, forms of government which they did not want, and which are alien, not merely to our conception, but to any conception, of democracy whatever. It was not the British who started the blockade of Berlin. Nor was it the Americans. When my hon. Friend appears to start with the assumption that there is about an equal


amount of wrong on both sides, that seems to me to be thoroughly unjust to our own people and to the Americans, and absolutely inconsistent with the facts of the last three years.
I hold the view that there is, at the moment a sense of lessened tension in the country, and in the world. I do not know to what that is due. It may be due to a number of things. For example, it may be due to the fact that the classic period of the year during which European wars usually begin—that is to say, in the late autumn when the harvest has been gathered in—has passed without an actual outbreak of armed conflict. That may be the explanation. On the other hand, it may be that the defeat of the Communist—inspired coal strike in France tends to create the sense of relief. It may even be that the recent Stalin interview in "Pravda" is capable of being construed as an effort on his part to justify the Russian line to a somewhat uneasy Russian people who require to be convinced. Indeed, it may be a combination of all these three things, but the fact remains that there is a sense of lessened tension.
I see nothing whatever in any single fact in the international situation which justifies that lessened tension. I think that the situation now is just as grave as it was a month ago. I think it will get worse as time goes on until there is, indeed, a positive policy on the part of the Americans and ourselves as comprehensive and as positive as the policy which the Russians are pursuing.
The defeat of the coal strike in France is not a defeat for the Communists, or, rather, it is only a defeat for the Communists if we imagine that their aims and instructions were to bring about an immediate revolution in France. If those were the instructions of the Cominform to the French Communists then, certainly, the collapse of the strike is a defeat. But, in fact, those were not the instructions from the Cominform. The instructions were different; they were to harass the French Government, and to do the utmost possible damage to French economy as part of the effort to frustrate the successful operation of the Marshall Plan, in Europe. If those were the instructions, then the Communists in France have had an immense success. They have

dealt a severe economic blow to French economy; they have retreated in good order, and it is possible for them to try exactly the same sort of game again tomorrow, or whenever some convenient opportunity arises.
Nor is it certain that the "Pravda" interview is an attempt by an uneasy dictator to justify himself to a somewhat uneasy rank and file. It is perfectly capable of being construed as the beginning of the effort to condition the Russian mind to war. I hold the view that nothing has been settled. The Berlin blockade goes on; we are no nearer peace treaties in respect of Germany than we were before; the proceedings at Paris get nowhere except up a blind alley; the political gap between the Russians and the democracies is, if anything, wider than before; and the "cold war" is being waged with persistent malignity in every part of the world. While our eyes have been fixed on Berlin, half a continent, in addition to all that which has already fallen, has fallen into Russian hands—Manchuria. The whole future of China is at stake, and, if China goes, everything will be at issue throughout the whole of the Far East. The whole balance of power in the entire world will be destroyed unless the Russian advance in Asia is arrested, and unless the Russian advance in Europe is contained.
When we discuss, however tentatively, the threat of war, let me say with great frankness—because it is important that one should not be misunderstood—I do not believe that Stalin wants war. I believe that we misconceive the whole strategy of Stalin, and the whole purpose of Communism, when we think of war in relation to them in 19th century terms. War in the 19th century was a matter between nations. Today it is a matter of continents and classes. And all the criteria which applied to war in the 19th century have become irrelevant to the conditions of today. In my opinion Stalin does not mean to march, because he is getting his own way without marching. That is the essential.
By the pursuit of the "cold war," through so-called National Communist parties and Communist—dominated trade unions, he inflicts upon the democracies the economic and financial effects of defeat without actually going to war. By keeping Europe in a state of unease, by such things as the Berlin blockade, and so on, he inspires a universal fear which


impels the democracies to divert to rearmament, men, materials, and resources which ought to go to the rebuilding of their shattered economies. He has only to carry on that process long enough to win without a shooting war, because, if we are compelled to divert a considerable proportion of our resources to armaments, that means fresh sacrifices and fresh hardships for the people and provides more opportunity for the Communist agitator and the Communist—dominated trade unions to make trouble for us.
In my view, Stalin's conception of war is not that of a primary instrument at all. If the process goes on long enough, subject to one exception, to which I will come in a moment, Stalin will get all the fruits of war without fighting. Europe will go, and the Far East will go, unless something stronger and more purposeful is opposed to Russian policy than has so far been opposed to it. It is even conceivable that Stalin thinks of a shooting war as merely the final push—over of social conditions which are already crumbling into decay, so that it ceases to be an initial operation, and becomes only the last straw, so to speak, which breaks the camel's back. It is perfectly conceivable that war will be quite unnecessary from his point of view, because he will get all he wants without it.
It is in this light that we must look at the American election to which my hon. Friend referred. President Truman takes office with fewer obligations to anybody, I suppose, than almost any President in American history. The Dixiecrats did their worst; Wallace and the Fellow—Travellers did their worst; Dewey and the Republicans did theirs, and, contrary to the expectation of political prophet and Gallup pollster alike, Truman won against all the odds. The fact that he has won against all the odds means that he enters office with fewer commitments and greater freedom than if he had made a whole series of electoral bargains in order to secure his majority.
I conceive it to be not only possible, but probable, that he will, with the minimum of delay, initiate a further attempt to reach a settlement with the Russians by agreement. I wish him Godspeed, and I think every man who has the remotest conception of what war in the conditions of this century would mean

must wish him Godspeed too. I believe that our Government, too, will not be behind in wishing him Godspeed. I do not mind if there is some little sacrifice of face involved either. If it is a question of where we are to meet, let us go to Moscow, if that is any difficulty. But I must say that from my reading of the Marxian dialectic, and from one's knowledge of the impetus which movements like the Russian Revolution today, and the French Revolution 150 years ago, generate, I think that the prospects of reaching a settlement by agreement are extremely remote. I hope profoundly that I am wrong in that, but if it proves that a settlement is not possible, then the world has got to take some decisions.
In the first place, those decisions must come from the United States of America. There alone is the resource of military power, not to defeat the Russians but to hold them in check. There alone is the concentration of industrial productive capacity which would enable a country to pursue a comprehensive and purposeful world policy. I am perfectly certain that nothing save immense American help can stop China going under the Russian heel. I see that in a pronouncement yesterday or today the Generalissimo talks of another eight years of war. I do not for a moment believe that the Chinese people can stand another eight years of war.

Mr. Harrison: They can stand a lot.

Mr. Brown: Well, I have expressed my view. I may be wrong, but at least that is my view. I doubt if the civil administration in China can hang together for another eight years of war. I doubt if Greece can endure many more years of the kind of situation which has existed there for the last three or four years. Therefore, there must be a direct, purposeful, and comprehensive policy which, in the first instance, it seems to me, can only come from America, because America alone has the material and other resources necessary to enable her to embark upon it.
I hope that if there is a peace move we shall do everything in our power to help it. I believe that every Member of this House will pray with the utmost earnestness that any such move as that shall succeed. But if it should fail, history will not exempt us, and history will not exempt the American people,


from their responsibility as the custodians of what is left of freedom in the world. If Truman goes and succeeds, God bless him. If he tries and fails, he and we and the American people will be in what Bunyan described as the "Valley of Decision." Decisions have got to be taken.
In my view, there is only one decision that can be taken, and that is to build up so great a preponderance—and here the resources must in the main come from America—that the gamble of further Russian expansion becomes too big a gamble to be undertaken. If we can rebuild a balance of power in the world, we may get a period of peace—uneasy peace, it may be, but a period of peace —in which the necessities of the nations will impel them to some kind of cooperative effort in this, that, or the other field, if only for the reason that we all live on the same planet and have got somehow to live together. In my view that is the great hope.
The worst danger for peace today is not strength but weakness. The worst enemy of peace today is the assumption which Hitler made, and which Stalin appears to be making, that you can go on that road of erosion and conquest forever, and everlastingly get away with it. Sooner or later somebody says, "No." If they had said "No" earlier, if they had backed their "No" with greater evidence of capacity to resist, the history of this century would have been very different from what it has been. Another Munich would settle not merely the fate of Germany or Austria. Another Munich would settle the fate of what is left of the free world.
While I support the plea of my hon. Friend, and while I often disagree with Members on the Front Bench—I thought the Minister of Works was absolutely shocking today—I believe in my soul that this Government want peace as urgently and as earnestly as anybody in the world. Therefore, I am sure they will support any attempt to get it. If, however, they find that there is no peace to be got except upon terms which mean the end of freedom in the world, I hope this country will take its stand in the "Valley of Decision," and will take the decisions which are called for by the circumstances of the day.

6.16 p.m.

Group-Captain Wilcock: I am very glad to be able to intervene in this interesting Debate. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) approached this subject from entirely the wrong angle. He appeared to me to be under the impression that we and also America desire a war. I feel that he came to that conclusion because we were taking responsible measures to re-arm, to introduce military service and so on. It is because we do not want an atomic war or a war of any kind that we are taking precautions.
The hon. Member may say that that will eventually lead to war, and I can only reply that over the last 25 years being very weak has also led to war. It is really a matter of selection between these two theories—one of being very weak, pacifist, and appealing to the human and better nature of the countries in the world who are strong, and the other of being so strong that one is not in danger of being attacked for one's possessions. And incidentally I do not think there is any need for us to apologise for our possessions; nor do I think there is any need for America to apologise for her possessions. It is how we administer them that matters.
The hon. Gentleman said that a few years ago we were bombing the houses in Berlin, and that now we were giving sweets to the children in Berlin. I must put on record that that is quite wrong. We never deliberately bombed the houses in Berlin or in any other town. In every town that we bombed there were strategic objectives and houses were not in that category. The hon. Gentleman very rightly said that we do not wish this country to be used as a sort of carrier or a gigantic landing ground. That is perfectly true. On the other hand, we were very glad indeed to have the American Air Force here a few years ago. Therefore, one ought to be very careful before making those remarks publicly, and saying that we do not welcome the Americans here. That is certainly not the case.
The Americans are here on a peaceful mission. We all hope they will remain on a peaceful mission. In any case, there is no reason why another English speaking country should not have its forces here to see that peace is maintained. I do not regard that as a menace to peace.


I and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House consider it a very useful and wise provision to have our American allies very close to us in these difficult times.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) said that although there was lessening tension throughout the world he was not quite sure of the reason for it. I should like to suggest to him that perhaps the reason why tension is being relieved somewhat is that we are showing a little strength. During a very recent visit I paid to Berlin I had the opportunity of speaking to many Germans and I found that while, quite obviously, there was no particular liking for the British—we would be very stupid to think there is—there was a very real dread of the Russians, and that brings us closer together at the moment.
The Russian has instilled on the Continent a very wholesome or unwholesome fear of his arms and his soldiery and I am afraid there is nothing we can do to counteract that fear except to have strong arms ourselves. That is the only possible way. If an atomic war should come, it would be disastrous. So would a war without atom bombs but with guided missiles. It would be even more disastrous, however, if we had weak Services and were not prepared, if we followed the preachings, the teachings or the arguments of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire—although I know they are perfectly sincere—if we did not rearm and did not get together to try to standardise equipment and arms between ourselves and our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic; if we followed that policy then we would not be serving peace or doing right by our people.
My final point is this. Arms in themselves are not enough. We must have them, of course, and the stronger they are I feel the less likelihood there is of war, but I think there is another thing. In our democracies we want a very much higher moral standard as well. Arms alone are not enough. There is a great lowering of moral standards throughout the world and throughout Europe today, particularly in France and Italy, and we ourselves are not guiltless. Until we and our people decide what line we are going to take on this question of morals and principles, then our Armed Forces will be of no avail. Should there be a question

of peace or war, should we have to decide once more whether this country, our resources and our people, shall stand again for freedom, then it must be because we believe our freedom and our way of living to be worth the sacrifice of war.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I hope the House will forgive me for intervening in this Debate, for I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and I heard only part of the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). Such deep questions have been involved, and I was so much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby, that I want to put before the House something which has been puzzling me and worrying me for a very long time.
I am sure that all opinion in this country would agree that this is not primarily a political struggle. It is not one of the old—fashioned diplomatic differences. It is a struggle of philosophy. The dilemma in which I find myself is that it seems to me that our way of life in this country, our ideas, our Parliamentary democracy, are based upon the same principles as those which have inspired Western and Christian civilisation since the beginning. It seems to me that that civilisation is distinguished from barbarism through the attention which is paid to the rights of the individual.
Both Western civilisation from Rome times and Christian civilisation, finding its origin in Hebrew civilisation, show one long history of the struggle for the liberation of the individual. It took very many centuries before the principle was established that every individual had the same inalienable right to justice in the face of the law, whatever his political opinions, or his religious creed, or the colour of his. skin, or his race, or his language. There were long struggles for the freedom of religious belief, for the freedom of people to practise their religion, for the freedom of political expression, for the freedom of thought, for the freedom of the Press; and it seemed that until the outbreak of the last war, civilisation was on the road to tackling freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
What has been achieved so far has been achieved at the cost of many millions


of lives and much human suffering, much labour and much struggle. Until recently, the philosophy behind civilisation was generally accepted. When I was born, in every single country in the world—perhaps in some places it was more honoured in the breach than in the observance—theoretically, at any rate, every man had the right to free and impartial justice. Freedom of speech was recognised as a desirable thing. Countries which did not permit it, felt they had to excuse themselves in the eyes of the world.
But a new philosophy grew up—the philosophy that the individual is not so important as the State or the community. We saw it in Fascist Italy, we saw it in Nazi Germany and we see it today in Communist Russia where, if the interests of the community—and that generally means the interest of the party which composes the Government of the State—conflict with the interests of the individual, then the individual is rooted up like a weed in a flower bed and thrown on to the bonfire. He has no right of appeal. We know the history of the last two years too well for it to be necessary for me to elaborate that point. As I see it, the philosophical conflict today is between those who believe that each individual is an immortal soul precious in the sight of his Creator, with inalienable rights which it is an unforgivable crime to diminish or to extinguish, and those who believe that the individual is only important as a member of the community, and that if the community demands that individual's extinction, or the deprivation of his rights, then the demands of the community have sole validity.
The dilemma in which I find myself —and I ask the House to believe, and especially hon. Gentlemen opposite to believe, that I am not trying to score a party point—is that it seems to me that the future of this world largely turns upon this country, because we occupy the middle position, if there is a balance of power, as we hope there will be. We shall have the deciding power to fling our weight on one side of the scale or the other, and thus give decisive strength to the side to which we adhere. The attitude of this country depends very largely upon the attitude adopted by the Labour Party, and the dilemma as I see

it is that the Labour Party has not yet made up its mind upon its philosophy or basic principles.
It is easy from their behaviour and methods to distinguish between the British Socialist and the Communist. Nobody on this side of the House or anywhere else would say that the methods of the British Labour Party or the behaviour of British Socialists at all resemble that of the Communists. No Conservative would charge the ordinary British Labour man with any less devotion to the rights of the individual and to democratic principles than that of Conservatives and Liberals. I admit that, and I say it in all my speeches in the country; but when we get down to the question of principles and philosophy, I find it impossible to apply any tests, any articles of belief, which can distinguish between Socialists and Communists.
I believe the greatest service that the Labour Party in this country can render to civilisation is to make up its mind whether Karl Marx is still its Bible or not, whether British Socialism is to take the path of advanced Radicalism and turn its back on Continental Socialism, or whether it is going to go on trying to have the best of both worlds, and claim support on the ground that it is genuinely Socialist and genuinely Marxian and that at the same time it is a genuine supporter of Parliamentary democracy as we know it in this country.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Upon what basis does the hon. Gentleman assume that Karl Marx has been the Bible of the British Labour Party?

Mr. Nicholson: I would say that Marx is one of two Bibles. There is a very moderate member of this House, moderate in his views—he is not here at the moment—who said at the last General Election that his approach to politics was with the Bible in one hand and Karl Marx in the other. I believe that that is the approach of the Labour Party in this country today.

Mr. Davies: That is wrong.

Mr. Nicholson: That is the dilemma in which I find myself. I am not trying to score a point on it. Until British Socialism makes up its mind whether all its efforts are directed towards the safeguarding of the hard-earned rights of the individual—hard—earned and hard


won throughout the centuries—or whether all its efforts are directed towards the magnification of the power of the State—until it makes that fundamental distinction, I believe that the lead given by this country and this Parliament in world affairs will be less effective than it should be. That is the dilemma in which I believe many of the voters of this country find themselves. It is the same old story. The Labour Party, it seems to me, believes it can conduct affairs on a basis of good intentions. I do not believe an individual can conduct his life on the basis of good intentions. I believe that in the long run it is a man's faith, belief, principles, philosophy that matter more than his intentions and more than his behaviour; and I believe that that applies to a great party in the State, just as much as it applies to an individual.
I put forward this dilemma in the hope that somebody on the other side of the House can answer the problem for me. To me this is the real problem that faces this country today. There can be no compromise between the sort of civilisation, the sort of organisation, which is directed towards the interests of the individual, and that which is directed towards the magnification of the power of the State. I believe that until we solve that problem, this country will not give the lead in world affairs that it is entitled to give.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The dilemma to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has referred is, I submit, entirely irrelevant In view of the subject which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Mr. Nicholson: How is it irrelevant on the Adjournment?

Mr. Hudson: It is not only irrelevant, but entirely unsupported, because anyone who has made a study of the Labour Party and its growth knows that Keir Hardie sometimes started his early meetings with prayer, and that at the end of his career he spoke of the necessity of going forth to preach Christ crucified, and that Keir Hardie and the Labour Party did not base their case on the Marxian philosophy. They were helped

by the Marxian philosophy, as the Conservative Party might be helped by the Marxian philosophy if it would look at the facts. The Marxian philosophy is a statement of a case, which, as I said the other day in another Debate, is the statement that, given the continuance of capitalism, and the basis of a world consisting of selfishness and the purely economic man, there will arise conflicts of a world-wide character, of nations, of classes, of individuals, to which there is no solution until the essential wrong of capitalism is dispensed with. That view, taught by Marx, led ultimately, through Communism, to the preaching of a method that, as the hon. Gentleman has frankly admitted, the Labour Party has not accepted—the method of settlement by violence. The Communists have turned the class kampf, the class struggle, as Marx called it, into class war, implying that the only settlement is by an appeal to military force. It is this attitude that the Labour Party, and the pioneers of the Labour Party, have never accepted.

Mr. Nicholson: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is really trying to answer my point. My difficulty is this, that many members of the Labour Party do preach class war, though I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) does not. For instance —and I merely quote this as an example —the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said he regarded the whole of the Conservative Party as lower than vermin. He has preached class war and directed a dagger against the heart of democracy, definitely. I cannot distinguish between that and naked, unadulterated Communism as in Russia. I am quite sure that many colleagues of the hon. Member for West Ealing differ profoundly from him in that they are Marxists.

Mr. Hudson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who seemed to have a case, makes it worse by the further references he has made. After all, if it is so important in the judgment of this issue, to recall what the Minister of Health said, we could not go far along those lines, because we could bring forward, as we have brought forward in times of stress, the stupid things that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has said. Thus we should find that these stupid things about cancelled each other out. If


we are to discuss this matter seriously I think we had better leave that sort of quotation out.

Mr. Nicholson: May I leave it out then, and merely say that a certain section of the Labour Party has obtained power and obtained support by preaching the class war? Quite definitely. We feel that. I may be wrong. However, we feel that a section of the Labour Party is far from the spirit of the hon. Gentleman, as being the only mainspring of the Labour Party, and that it finds one of the mainsprings —if one can have more than one mainspring—in the preaching of class war and bitterness.

Mr. Speaker: Let me remind the House that although many things are in Order in Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment, there must be Ministerial responsibility for them, and that the Debate must have some connection with that.

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps, I have helped the hon. Member for Farnham to wander from the path by my willingness to deal with his objections. We must drop those and return to the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has left his place, because I wanted to say something particularly about the matters he raised.

Mr. Nicholson: On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Are you, Mr. Speaker, making a definite Ruling that on the Adjournment we are limited to subjects to which a Ministerial reply can be made? I was under the impression that on the Adjournment we could talk about practically anything.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, no. The hon. Gentleman is entirely in error. There must, in all our Debates, be Ministerial responsibility. We are not merely a talking shop. When we have a Debate we either attack or defend the Government and their responsibility. That is, surely, clearly laid down.

Mr. Hudson: I do not wish to be involved in an attack upon the Government, or suggest there should be some responsibility exercised in a way very different from the way in which it has already been exercised. As I said the

other day in the Debate on the Address, in which, I thought, some latitude was allowed, I do not wish at all to object to the policy that the Foreign Secretary is pursuing. I thought he was in an extremely difficult situation, and I want to say that again in rather a different form in support of the case put forward by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. We are facing an extremely dangerous and difficult situation. I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Rugby believes, that there is any reason why the Foreign Secretary should be discouraged by what the hon. Member for Rugby has described as the complete success of Mr. Stalin's policy.
As a matter of fact, there is no success of that policy. There is no need for our Foreign Office to turn aside from the correct position—from our point of view —because of what has happened in France. As I see the position in France, Mr. Stalin's policy—the policy of the Communists—has led to the almost complete submergence of the Communists. The Communists have done about as badly as they could do in the Elections which have just concluded; and General de Gaulle, who is the last man presumably whom the Communists want to have in a position of power, has been brought by Communist action and the policy of the futile strikes in France nearer to power than at any other time in his career. I go further and say that the Foreign Office has no grounds for discouragement because of what is happening in China. I admit, as the hon. Member for Rugby admitted, that the situation in China is serious; but it is also serious in Russia by the very fact that they have an Iron Curtain.
Hon. Members here, again and again, suggested that there must be something behind that Iron Curtain which the Russians wish to conceal. I believe that is true. I believe that the returning Russian soldiers from Austria and Berlin—the men who have been almost cheek by jowl with our own soldiers and American soldiers—have taken back a story of what is happening in Western Europe which does not square at all with what the Communists tell them behind the Iron Curtain; and, given patience, this process of Russian Imperialism, as I call it, based upon the power wielded by a great military leader, backed up by an


effective police force, will in the long run contribute to its own destruction. It has contributed now to its own destruction in France and in other parts of the world. It may be very difficult to have patience to wait until these things run their course, but, on the other hand, it would be very foolish to break out into new warlike enterprises if these could be avoided by patience which might produce other results.
I think that at the moment there is a special reason for patience on the part of this country, in view of what has happened in America and what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Truman and his lonely fight against Gallup polls, official newspapers and great parties; and, indeed, the contempt which has been poured on him from these islands, because there were derogatory references to Mr. Truman and the utter unlikelihood of his ever being listened to again. The need for patience is all the greater in view of the point raised by my hon. Friend with regard to Mr. Truman's suggestion that he should send a private friend, Judge Vinson, to meet the Russian leader.
As a matter of fact, the Americans, as I see it, in the Election have, for the first time, indicated clearly to the world, to us and Mr. Stalin that they are willing, if friendship can work at all, that a new effort in that direction should be made. I am hopeful—and I build my hope on what I have already said about the inevitable breakdown of the Stalin system—that the Russians will themselves be compelled to look for a way out of the difficulties which they themselves have created.
I have often said when I have read Mr. Vishinsky's speeches that they contribute little to that enthusiasm for Russia which we got from the stories we were told about Russia when Russia allowed us to visit that country. The returning excursionists sent a labour force into Russia in the years between the wars, and when they came back they described how a new and better Russian system was growing, how a dam was being built across the Dnieper, how a new school system was being created, how parks of rest and recreation were being developed, and how a new opportunity for a fuller life was being accorded to the people. Those were the things which won for Russia respect and support in the world.

They are rather different from the feelings which are being won for Russia by the speeches of Mr. Vishinsky and the "No's" of Mr. Molotov.
I suggest again that there must be patience and a new effort to try to find a means by which the Russians may be helped to save their own position in the hopeless situation which they have helped to create. Unlike the hon. Member for Rugby, I do not try to put the whole of the blame on the Russians. I do not say that the blame is fifty—fifty, but whatever the proportion is, I know that we have some blame for the situation in which we find ourselves. I know what Professor Blackett described in his recent book concerning the responsibility for the dropping of the atom bomb. I know how that was timed in order to prevent the Russians from developing a military campaign agreed on not only by the Russians, but by ourselves and the Americans, and that the dropping of the bomb was a good deal more the first blow in the cold war which has since developed than the final blow in the war that has just ended.
It is these facts described by Professor Blackett and the facts known in Russia that have contributed on their side to an unyielding suspicion about our attitude in the world. I do not blame them for that. I say to the Russians—so far as my advice can reach them from these Benches in an Adjournment Debate—that they are called upon now by the situation in which they find themselves, to find new methods to face the world dangers which concern us all. If it is true that Mr. Truman can persuade America to give him another chance to send Judge Vinson or any other emissary to meet Mr. Stalin in order to try to break down the suspicion which the atom bomb has created and the wrong policies practised by the Russians as well as ourselves, every effort ought to be made to help him towards that end.
I cannot say more, as the Foreign Office is not represented but from the point of view of what I have said, I do not think that the absence of a Foreign Office representative matters very much. I am talking to our own folk, and I am talking to the Russians whom I have always regarded as a potentially friendly nation, and concerning whom I have always made appeals in this House that


we should try to practise so far as we can the friendly approach rather than the inimical one. Because I see this new chance which the hon. Member has provided tonight by raising this matter, I support the plea he has made and beg everybody to try some new and better method of settling the difficulties in which the world finds itself.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Yates: I welcome the raising of this question tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) because I, like him, have had an opportunity of visiting the United States during the last year. I think, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) said, that President Truman has been elected with probably greater freedom of action than any previous President of the United States of America, and it is important that we should look at the whole question of a peace approach in the light of that fact. When I was in the United States just over 12 months ago I was shocked by the attitude of the Press from day to day. Practically daily for about seven weeks I read the American Press, and it all seemed to be in one strain: it preached the inevitability of war and encouraged mass hysteria, and I came away feeling that it would be almost impossible for the people of America to resist that mass suggestion, although some of my friends in America said: "The Press is not quite as powerful as you seem to think. After all, there are many thousands of people in America who are working for peace; and, indeed, as time goes on you will find that their opinions will be understood and heard."
I now find myself in agreement with those who feel that the present triumph of the American President is a triumph for the working man against those forces which attempt to stir up all the antagonism and the bitter strife which lead to war. Because the President of the United States has such freedom at the moment, I hope that our own Government will seize this opportunity to encourage and support him in any effort he may make to bring about better understanding.
The hon. Member for Rugby said that Stalin's purpose was to divert our efforts from rehabilitation. I can only comment that there must be considerable devastation in Russia, and if Stalin's purpose be

to divert us, then I should think he must be smiling at the enormous expenditure on armaments which is being incurred both here and in the United States. According to a "New York Herald Tribune" which I read some time ago, it was estimated that the cost of armaments in America was twice that in Russia; we are spending in the neighbourhood of £700 million a year on defence, and France is spending nearly £600 million. Surely, we ought to look for some means of revising these estimates, the result of which is to press so heavily on the peoples? Reference has been made to the devastation in Berlin, and it was suggested that our bombers never really bombed houses but went only for strategic objects. When I was in Berlin and Hamburg I was filled with complete horror at the thought that it should be considered necessary to win a war by causing that terrible devastation.
In spite of all the great difficulties in the present international situation, think that the combined power of the common peoples of this country and America ought to be able to exercise a moral influence in the world towards a new approach to the international situation. Therefore, I feel that my hon. Friend was well advised in raising this issue, because even though we have not a representative of the Foreign Office here tonight, I hope that note will be taken of the feelings which have been expressed in the House so that we may get a new and realistic approach to a problem which can be overcome by the united effort of the peoples of the world.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: I am very diffident at intervening in this Debate, because I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I should like very briefly to say this to the hon. Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham (Mr. Yates). Is not the vast expenditure that the United States is incurring on rearmament, and such expenditure as we are incurring, for the purpose, not of defeating another country but of preventing war? I think that too often hon. Members opposite—true, only a few of them—suggest that we are engaging in warlike enterprises, whereas what we and the United States are doing is to try to build up such a


power as will make impossible the engaging of war against us.
I think that the war tension has, to some extent, relaxed lately: partly because of what has happened in Italy and what is now happening in France, the reverses sustained by Communism in those and other countries; still more because of the very effective air lift to Berlin, which has so surprised those who imposed the blockade; and finally, and above all, because of the very close concord between the United States of America and this country, and certain Western democracies, which have shown strength—and it is, I believe, through strength that we shall get peace.
I should like to quote what was said a very long time ago—I think about 1860 —by a Foreign Secretary of this country, which I think is not inapplicable today:
The policy and practice of the Russian Government in regard to Turkey and Persia has always been to push forward its encroachments as fast and as far as the apathy or want of firmness of other Governments would allow it to go but always to stop and retire when it has met with decided resistance.
I suggest that that is as true of Russia today as it was of Russia under the Czars 80 years ago. It seems to me that one of three things is fairly certain. Either the U.S.S.R. want war because they think war is coming inevitably and it will suit them better now than later—or because of internal troubles—in which case nothing we do can very much accelerate or delay it; or they want war unless they get all they want, in which case the outlook is very sombre, because I am afraid that what they want is to dominate the world; or, finally—and I trust much the most likely—they do not want war at all, but are prepared to take some risks to get what they do want. The latter is the most hopeful prospect, and it is only in that third alternative that we can really influence a decision.
I believe that if we are to influence a decision to the utmost to prevent war it is by the United States of America and ourselves showing Russia exactly those steps beyond which she cannot in safety go; otherwise we shall be guilty of raising her hopes and enabling her to make advances from which it might be very difficult for her to withdraw. Therefore, I do suggest that speeches such as

that of the hon. Member for the Lady-wood Division of Birmingham—if I understood him rightly—do not really strengthen the cause of peace, as I know he would most profoundly wish to do.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Kinley: This is a subject upon which one must speak with great care, for only the irresponsible can give full vent to their ideas. I believe that there is a great deal of truth in the case put forward by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). I also believe that a great disservice is being rendered to public opinion in this country by those who are continually urging us to get closer to Russia and less close to America. One of the first things we ought to do, if we are to understand the existing situation in Europe, is to examine the psychology of the Russians. If we do that, we shall discover that we have in Russia a group of leaders who are not prepared to argue with anyone who is outside their country. The very basis of their creed prevents them from even contemplating compromise, unless it is forced upon them by superior arms. A Communist cannot compromise with anyone who declares himself to be a Communist but does not put himself completely under the thumb of the Communist leaders. Yugoslavia is a proof of that.
There is no freedom under Communism for anyone except the leaders, and that is why Russia must be kept as secret as possible and why the Russians must be prevented from having contacts with the Western world. It might have been imagined prior to 1939, that close cooperation would have been possible between a Communist Russia and a Socialist Britain, but that is not so. We now have clear proof that there can be no co—operation, close or otherwise, between a Communist Russia and a Communist Yugoslavia, and that only blind subservience can be tolerated by Moscow.
As far as we are concerned, we are as helpless in attempting to persuade Russia to compromise or to accept our point of view as in trying to convert the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) into believing that teetotalism is a bad thing, or in persuading a pacifist Member that pacifism is a bad thing. There are


ideas which are seized upon by the human mind and which make a person impermeable to all arguments, and Communism is one of these. The Communism in Russia today is so hidebound that it excludes any Communist who does not blindly accept the leadership at present operating in Moscow. That is shown by the existence in this and other countries of groups of Communists calling themselves the "Revolutionary Communist Party." These are people who have been exiled from Russia, just as Trotsky was exiled.
It is with this kind of people that we have to deal. I believe that we ought to go to war only in self-defence. We should continue our present efforts in Berlin, because I am quite certain that the future welfare of the rest of Europe depends on our remaining there and gaining the right, not only to be there, but to have a free approach to Berlin from the British and American zones. I believe that in present circumstances the actions of the Foreign Office have been right. We shall need great determination and endless patience. We are dealing with an antagonist who is not yet an open enemy, an antagonist who can afford to sit on what he has already won. I believe that endless patience will eventually lead us to better times. While we can retain the existing situation, the rest of Europe is gradually developing its own resources, becoming less dependent upon the rest of the world, and more capable of doing something in its own defence. Therefore, the more time we can gain, the greater service we shall be able to render ourselves and the rest of Europe.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Collins: Those who have taken part in this Debate seem to be divided into those who appear to hold the view that war is inevitable and those who protest, as I do, against that assumption. I believe the assumption that war must come is a contributing factor to its inevitability. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) spoke of building up such forces between the United States and Great Britain as to make the threat of attack almost impossible. Although unity in every possible way between us and the United States is immensely desirable, any idea

that such a union could prevent war is quite absurd. One could quote innumerable examples throughout history of great forces which have been built up on the assumption that because they were unassailable war could be avoided, but in all these cases these hopes have been proved completely groundless. The only possibility of avoiding war is by a world federation and the creation of a supranational State to take the weapons out of men's hands.

Mr. Spearman: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that if a greedy Power was bent on world domination, it would be much more likely to start a war if the rest of the world was weak and divided, than if it were strong and united? Does he not think that if we are weak, we are in danger of being gobbled up?

Mr. Collins: I accept that entirely, but I understood the hon. Member to say that the kind of union he described, and which most people in this country support in one way or another, would be a means of avoiding war. I say that although it might delay a war, it could not prevent an eventual conflagration.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), that the policy of this country, the one that we must pursue, is that of patience and effort, provided it never amounts to appeasement. I believe that such a policy is now producing positive results. We can see what is happening. It is easy for Members to say, as some have said tonight, that in the final analysis we must face war if it comes. That is obvious; it is something which almost everyone accepts. But we have to realise that if it did come, we should be presiding at the funeral of civilisation as we know it today. Therefore, all efforts must be bent on finding a way out.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) gave us his views on the recent American election. He said a number of obvious things with precision, but there were some which I thought rather contradictory. He carefully showed that we are having a cold war, wherein Russia was attempting to achieve her objective without actual war, and in the hope that if force were needed, it would only be for what he called a pushover. The hon. Member also suggested that we must build up such preponderance,


economically and militarily, as to remove any threat from Russia.
These two statements are contradictory. Indeed, they could be a positive menace. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that nothing sufficiently positive was being done to oppose Communism. I believe there is only one positive thing which can be done to oppose Communism in any real sense, and that is to build up the standard of living of the depressed peoples. What is the position in Europe today? Is there a Power which, in any sense, could stand up to a Russian attack, either in a cold or a hot war? Of course there is not, and one of the major reasons is that in France the conditions of industrial workers are so deplorable. The French Government are not facing up to their responsibilities in the way in which this Government have faced up to theirs, with the result that conditions ripe for the spread of Communism are created.
The most significant point about the result of the American election is its likely effect on the economic future of Europe and the world. If, as has been suggested, Mr. Truman's victory makes more likely the continuance of such aid as Europe needs for her rehabilitation, then it will be the most important contribution that can be made to the defence of world democracy against the inroads of Communism. The policy of our Government is of vital importance in this respect. As the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) said, this country has a vital role to play. On the success of the domestic Measures we are introducing, on our own economic rehabilitation, depends far more than the standard of living of our own people.
For instance, conditions in the Colonial Empire, where millions of native peoples are still hopelessly depressed, where they have been exploited for so many years, are ripe for the spread of Communism. Those peoples constitute an immediate menace to peace, and it is of vital importance that we should pursue a policy of sparing as much as we can from our own meagre resources for the development of those areas, not with the object, as in the past, of bringing back from them far more by way of dividends than we put into them, but by providing capital equipment and resources for their greater development, to raise their standard of

living and to increase world trade. In that way we shall be providing the greatest possible barrier against the spread of Communism. I believe that the result of the American election assuring, as it does, the continuance of the policy which has been pursued, in the economic field over the last 12 months, constitutes a very great hope for the future peaceful development of the world.

7.18 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Almost everybody who has spoken, from this side of the House at least, seems to feel the necessity for a new approach towards the problem which we are reviewing in this Adjournment Debate. Listening to various Members, I have come to the conclusion that in some quarters at least, there is the feeling that the pattern of behaviour among people in the Soviet Union, differs from the pattern of behaviour among the people of the West, whether in the United States or in this country. Different reasons have been offered for that view, but if an examination of this opinion be carried a little further, if the basic elements that underlie such a belief are scrutinised, I believe it will be found that such a view is superficial.
I hope the House will not mind if 1 illustrate what I mean by quoting a physiological experiment about the effect of certain external factors on the behaviour of animals. I think it may be suitable, especially as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) has touched on the question of nutrition and the need to increase the amount of food that is available in the world. If rats are placed in a cage, and fed in a certain way, and their behaviour examined, and, under exactly the same conditions, other rats, of the same species, are fed in a different way, certain changes in behaviour are noted.
A classical experiment was to feed a group of rats upon a diet which did not create hunger, a diet which provided ample calorie value but which was deficient in certain nutritional elements, such as vitamins and mineral salts, which are essential to good health. The diet that was considered to be deficient consisted of the type of bread that we used to have pre-war—refined white bread. The fat provided for them was


unvitaminised margarine, and the meat was carcase meat, that is to say, it was not offal, such as liver. There was no milk, but there was an ample supply of sugar and of jam of the cheap types, such as we used to eat. In the other cage the diet consisted of wholemeal grain, leaf green vegetables, and a little cod liver oil and milk as required.
What was noted was this: after 30 days the rats that were fed on the malnutrition diet began to murder each other, became cannibals and devoured each other. In the cage where the diet was one which we try to obtain for ourselves, owing to our knowledge of nutrition, at the end of two years—and two years, in a rat's life is equivalent to 50 years of human life—there was not only complete health but there was no infantile mortality and no gross disease, such as we used to see in the out—patient departments of our general hospitals. There were, of course, the little sportive combats in the rutting season, with a tail and an ear bitten off here and there, but that was all.
I am very sorry if the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) finds what I have said amusing. I can assure him that if he had my experience as a medical man in a large industrial town he would not have thought it funny at all. If it be accepted that hunger and malnutrition can cause the changes in the behaviour of animals that I have briefly mentioned, what is one to expect from mankind if throughout the world we are faced—as, indeed, we are faced today and have been faced for as many generations as we know—with total hunger for hundreds of millions of people and no possibility of any true amelioration unless the nations come together and combine cooperatively to bring about a solution of this distressing problem?
Hon. Members on both sides have spoken about the need for a new approach. Surely this is a possible method of a new approach. No one is going to persuade me—or, indeed, any hon. Member of this House—that the Russian people do not want to have all the food that is necessary, and food of the right type. That, surely, applies to the people of China also. I think that we all—in the Soviet Union, here, in the United States, and everywhere on this planet—

are satisfied that without peace, we cannot have the satisfaction of these elementary rights. A new set of cards, whether the faces are upward or downward, seems to be indicated, and the calling together of the type of world organisation that Sir John Boyd Orr has always preached as being desirable and essential would, I think, bring forth from everybody all the world over, including the Soviet Union, the right answer.
Why must we always think in terms of strategy and politics when our real need is to live? Even if we do not wish to live for ever, whilst we do live we ought to live to eat and remain in good health. I think the outlook for the world is far better than many people have thought for a long time. I have never been very pessimistic but I remember that when I first spoke in this House three and a half years ago, I said four things were essential: That the world as a whole must produce very much more food if we were to solve the sort of problem we are speaking about today; that importing countries like Britain cannot expect to be able to import as much as they used to import in the olden days; that exporting countries will look at the needs of their people and will not export so much. All these things, it seems, are certainly happening. The fourth point was that unless we use science and make a co-operative effort the whole world over to help us in agriculture, the earth will revolt against us and we shall never solve this problem. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will remember that this is a possible approach to this problem, and an approach that will be welcomed. I think, all over the world.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Norman Bower: I am afraid that I am not capable of following the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) into the chemical and biological fields. I intervene just to say that I found it a little difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) when he said that, in his view, it was not possible by building up defensive forces to make war impossible permanently and to deter aggression to such an extent that war would never eventuate.

Mr. Collins: I was merely refering to a suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and


Whitby (Mr. Spearman), who suggested the building up of those forces between the United States and this country, and I said that that could not possibly remove war permanently.

Mr. Bower: That is precisely what I am referring to. I understood the hon. Member for Taunton to say that however much America and this country built up their armed strength, it would not have the effect of permanently preventing war. That is exectly the point with which I am not in agreement. With all due respect, that very point has really never been historically tested. I do not know how far back the hon. Member intended to go, but I should have thought that, as far as 1914 and 1939 were concerned, a very good case could be made out for the view that in those two cases Germany only took the risk of going to war because, not only was there insufficient preparedness on our side, but because the intentions and determination both of this country and, even more so, of the United States of America, had never been adequately made plain. A strong case can be made out for that view. Even if one goes further back, I should not think there is any clear case to substantiate the hon. Member's view that it is not possible to prevent war permanently by building up defensive forces.
The great danger of war today arises from the fact that Russia knows that, if there were war, she would be in a position, with her vastly superior armies, to sweep over the whole Continent of Europe in a very short time and do almost irreparable damage in various ways before ultimately she might be forced back as the result of a lengthy struggle. It seems to me that that knowledge and the temptation which it puts in her way, might induce her to take the risk even of having the atom bomb used against her; although I am beginning to incline to the view that she does not intend to take that risk. That, I think, is a very hopeful feature of the present situation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton and other hon. Members opposite when they say that we should make every possible effort and exercise almost unlimited patience at this stage to try to come to an agreement with Russia and to put relations on a more friendly basis if necessary by sending a special

emissary to talk things over with Stalin, as President Truman intended to do. I think that that was one of the main factors in influencing the result of the American election, people deciding that they wanted something of that sort done and supporting Truman because they thought that he was more likely to do it than was anybody else.
While not neglecting to build up our own armed strength so as to make ourselves able to resist attack we should try to remove from Russia the great temptation of knowing that she could over-run everything if there were war. We should pursue those two parallel policies side by side. I think we should then find that the danger of war would steadily recede.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The critical position with which we are faced is not so much a military as an economic one. We may be giving too much attention to the distant bear, when we ought to be fixing our attention upon the wolf at the door. There is no reason to suppose from the recent history of Russia that she wants war. Anybody who has seen the terrible devastation inside that country, surpassing anything in Europe including Germany, would find it difficult to believe that Russia would voluntarily embark upon another war. Indeed it is often said by friendly critics of Russia's policy that she does not want war, but wants the fruits of war. If we take the history of what has occurred since the war we shall find that Russia has, in the military sense, evacuated Persia, Manchuria, Yugoslavia, Norway and the Danish island of Bjornholm and other places. If the Russians were thinking in terms of military aggression there is little doubt that they would have retained those areas as places d'armes for future aggressions. I do not think therefore, that it can be their intention.
It has been suggested that Russia is trying to achieve her aims by infiltration and the spread of Communism, but the spread of Communism will depend upon economic and not upon military factors. What has built up communism in China is not the Soviet Union but the corrupt and brutal regime of Chiang Kai-Shek. What is building up Communism in France today is not the Soviet Union but the economic incompetence of the


present French Government. Indeed, the army of one million men which France maintains and cannot afford, and her lavish military expenditure which results in the lowering of the conditions of the French working class, produce more Communists than the Soviet Union or the Cominform have ever produced.
I do not think there need be any fear of the spread of Communism in this country provided we are able to maintain a reasonable standard of conditions for the working class. Wherever there has been an advance of Communism, it is on account of the economic conditions in that country. How can we prevent a deterioration of economic conditions? Surely not by embarking upon an arms race which will result in the spending of more money than we can afford. We ought to attend to the primary economic struggle which we have to face. Whether one regime or another survives, depends in the long run upon the soundness of its economics and whether it makes economic progress or not. Whether the Eastern States now allied to the Soviet Union survive in their present form and maintain Communists Governments will depend in the long run—and in the short run—upon whether they make economic success. What applies to the East will apply to the West. The Americans may think without serious economic catastrophe, because of their immense economic resources, of the building up of their Forces and embarking upon an armaments race. For us the danger is exceedingly great, and we ought to concentrate first and foremost upon stabilising ourselves economically.
Can we come to terms with Soviet Russia? It has been suggested that Communists

do not compromise but I cannot agree with that suggestion. If anybody examines the history of Soviet Russia since the days of the revolution they will find innumerable examples of compromise. The Russians, like everybody else, will accept the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. I am sure that it is possible, even today, on the basis of mutual concession on both sides, for us to understand the Russian point of view and for them to understand ours, and to come to some agreement.
It seems to me that there has been recently in many respects a movement by the Soviet Union in that direction and a desire to eliminate possible points of friction. I believe for instance there has been an approach on the subject of Austria recently. The main danger area at the present time where it is difficult to see how points of friction can be removed is Berlin, but I understand that the difference between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia today is largely because of the questions of Carinthia and Trieste, which stand in the way of a settlement which would lessen the friction and would be in the obvious interests of Soviet Union economy at the present time.
I hope that we shall make a fresh approach to these problems and look at the matter again, perhaps with fresh minds on both sides. The greatest catastrophe which can afflict mankind is neither Capitalism nor Communism, or any other "ism," but the danger of a new war.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Eight o'Clock.